sombreroloco Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 I don't care, because I don't use the Internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuggets Mahoney Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Prior to the Internet, with the exception of the occasional Pistols lyric, I barely encountered any libertarian or anarchist thinking. After the essentially ungoverned Internet came along I was bumping into snippets of people acting and talking like anarchists all over the place. We really can't have people behaving like that. Heaven knows where it would all end up. Ordinary folk could, of course, find numerous examples of governments and politicians causing death and harm to innocents, make a general case out of those examples and use that as an excuse to limit the powers of politicians and governments under the threat of violence. However, that would be far too equitable. An Internet comprising half a dozen major shopping sites and a few NSA-controlled social media portals is what They would have. Though I'm not entirely sure They started trying to put the genie back in the bottle soon enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bendy Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 I don't care, because I don't use the Internet. Good point - time to buy shares in corner shops or park bushes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuggets Mahoney Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 The British government is suspected of being associated with numerous acts of violence and thievery; at home and overseas.Do you choose to opt in? YES / NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 An Internet comprising half a dozen major shopping sites and a few NSA-controlled social media portals is what They would have. Though I'm not entirely sure They started trying to put the genie back in the bottle soon enough. Yeah, seen it heading that way meself for some time now. They had porn in Brave New World. State produced and endorsed, naturally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_GradualCringe_* Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Right wing nutters shut down internet. Amusing that the free marketeer right though it would be the socialists! ..... The guy's a lunatic The problem is, they (a great many of MPs on both sides of the Commons), in my opinion, are clearly bonkers, from reading previous BBC articles, the Labour party were pushing for this too: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23393851 From the link: "Labour said the PM's plans did not go "far enough" and criticised cuts to online child abuse policing budgets." I don't wish to pick on Labour MP's as such, I just want to point out (in conjunction with your comment) that MPs on both sides of the chamber seem hell bent on destroying our freedom, continually using the fallacy of the "Harm Principal/Precautionary Principal" to justify a ban on practically anything these people feel "something most be done about" (i.e. the usual term MPs and talking heads use when inventing problems to justify their jobs). This is all too reminiscient of the Commons debate with regard to press regulation (another subject closely connected with freedom), I don't know if you noticed the crazy comments on both sides. Of two comments in this regard I remember in particular, is one from an MP that looked like "Jim Hood" (Labour MP for Lanark and Hamilton East) stood up and insisted that newspapers be licensed (he was reminded, but I cannot remember by whom that press licenses were last enforced back in Tudor/Stuart times). The other was Ivan Lewis (Labour MP for Bury South) who implied some sort of licensing system for journalists (such that they could be struck if found guilty of misconduct). Unfortunately the backward logic in both of these debates has gone completely unquestioned i.e. images on the internet do not cause child abuse (same goes for laws broken by certain journalists i.e. a free press isn't the cause). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 The backward logic also seems to go comletely unquestioned i.e. images on the internet do not cause child abuse (same goes for laws broken by certain journalists i.e. a free press isn't the cause). That's if such images even exist. The BBC piece on the matter last night, despite being apparently produced by journalists, did not attempt to show even in the vaguest terms how easy (or otherwise) it is to obtain such material. Just repeated government assertions that it's all over the place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuggets Mahoney Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Yeah, seen it heading that way meself for some time now. They had porn in Brave New World. State produced and endorsed, naturally. For the reasons you allude to, I'm reasonably sure They don't give a stuff about the p0rn and won't restrict it in any significant way. The Devil finds work for idle hands. So, best keep those hands busy. It's political dissent and dissemination of information that would nurture dissent that's the real target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errol Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Plenty of films have rape shown in them. In graphic detail. Are they to be illegal as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_GradualCringe_* Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 How can MPs be so sure that the internet causes child abuse (that is the logic implied by their actions i.e. censoring the internet will ameliorate child abuse) Since the introduction of the internet has child abuse in the UK got better or worse? This seems to be missing from the BBC article, or David Cameron's arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuggets Mahoney Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Are my eyes deceiving me or did I see someone try to make this a Left vs Right, rather than Authoritarian vs. Libertarian issue earlier on in the thread? That's the sort of statist-friendly flimflam we had to put up with, almost exclusively, before the Internet came along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 How can MPs be so sure that the internet causes child abuse (that is the logic implied by their actions i.e. censoring the internet will ameliorate child abuse) Since the introduction of the internet has child abuse in the UK got better or worse? This seems to be missing from the BBC article, or David Cameron's arguments. I do know of somebody who was convicted of possessing child pornography. Never had a chance to ask how he obtained it, but do I think he would have sought it out, but for the internet? No. Do I think he would abuse a "real" child. Again, no. I've seen one of two things on my internet travels (admittedly not recently) that I thought were iffy but which I would consider distasteful rather than illegal. However, since I don't know what he (or anybody else convicted) had possession of, it might well be the same stuff and the law's definitions might be completely at odds with mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_GradualCringe_* Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 That's if such images even exist. The BBC piece on the matter last night, despite being apparently produced by journalists, did not attempt to show even in the vaguest terms how easy (or otherwise) it is to obtain such material. Just repeated government assertions that it's all over the place. It seems like the usual dishonesty job when introducing new legislation i.e. loudly backed by pure moralising (no evidence, no counter debate, which is made publicly impossible in this case when the moralising relates to child abuse), with the real underlying motive coveniently forgotten (most probably as a first step of enabling the establishment of control of the information on the internet that runs contrary to their interests). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_GradualCringe_* Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Are my eyes deceiving me or did I see someone try to make this a Left vs Right, rather than Authoritarian vs. Libertarian issue earlier on in the thread? That's the sort of statist-friendly flimflam we had to put up with, almost exclusively, before the Internet came along. I believe it was RK. Right wing nutters shut down internet.Amusing that the free marketeer right though it would be the socialists! I pointed out that people on both sides of the chamber have made utterly lunatic comments in this regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 It seems like the usual dishonesty job when introducing new legislation i.e. loudly backed by pure moralising (no evidence, no counter debate, which is made publicly impossible in this case when the moralising relates to child abuse), with the real underlying motive coveniently forgotten (most probably as a first step of enabling the establishment of control of the information on the internet that runs contrary to their interests). I suspect we're about to be treated to the mother and father of all stitch-up jobs, personally. A very high profile event in the offing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuggets Mahoney Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 I pointed out that people on both sides of the chamber have made utterly lunatic comments in this regard. wiki: Chariot Racing The driver's clothing was color-coded in accordance with his faction, which would help distant spectators to keep track of the race's progress.[52] According to the disapproving Tertullian, there were originally just two factions, White and Red, sacred to winter and summer respectively.[53] As fully developed, there were four factions, the Red, White, Green, and Blue.[54] Each team could have up to three chariots each in a race. Members of the same team often collaborated with each other against the other teams, for example to force them to crash into the spina (a legal and encouraged tactic).[38] Drivers could switch teams, much like athletes can be traded to different teams today.By 77 BC, the rivalry between the Red and the Whites was already developed, when a funeral for a Red driver involved a Red supporter throwing himself on the funeral pyre. No writer of the time, however, refers to these as factions such as came into existence later, with the factions being official organizations.[38] Writing near the beginning of the third century, he wrote that the Reds were dedicated to Mars, the Whites to the Zephyrs, the Greens to Mother Earth or spring, and the Blues to the sky and sea or autumn.[53] Domitian created two new factions, the Purples and Golds, which disappeared soon after he died.[38] The Blues and the Greens gradually became the most prestigious factions, supported by emperor and populace alike. Numerous occasions occurred when a Blue vs. Green clash would break out during a race. Indeed, Reds and Whites are only rarely mentioned in the surviving literature, although their continued activity is documented in inscriptions and in curse-tablets. Of course, links to stuff like the above will have to go in due course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_GradualCringe_* Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 I suspect we're about to be treated to the mother and father of all stitch-up jobs, personally. A very high profile event in the offing. I'm not sure if it will be high profile, I think it takes a brave person to stand up to baseless moralising on paedophilia/child abuse, and sadly I think this will be made law with little opposition or further coverage (I hope I'm wrong). Plus the fact, most of the older generation probably don't care or understand, and they make up the majority of voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niall of the Nine Hostages Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 It seems like the usual dishonesty job when introducing new legislation i.e. loudly backed by pure moralising (no evidence, no counter debate, which is made publicly impossible in this case when the moralising relates to child abuse), with the real underlying motive coveniently forgotten (most probably as a first step of enabling the establishment of control of the information on the internet that runs contrary to their interests). One of the things that occurred to me with regard to the Zimmerman case and the shocking behaviour of the MSM together with the acquittal and subsequent freak-out, was that the MSM look like they have almost totally lost control of The Narrative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Plus the fact, most of the older generation probably don't care or understand, and they make up the majority of voters. My parents take the biscuit. My mother already said the internet was "the worst invention ever". From conversations I've had with them I reckon they think if they ever did get a computer then the minute it was turned on filth would start to cascade, printer-like, from the screen, which would then have to be rolled up and somehow constantly forced back into the telephone line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 These steps: Government introduces new opt-in law. Blacklist and whitelist produced for ISPs Parents do not opt-in, wanting to protect their children without having to make any effort. Porn sites get missed off/ circumvent blacklist Parents let their children surf unsupervised because parents are lazy and assume the state will do their nannying job for them. Children access the unblocked porn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R K Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 I believe it was RK. I pointed out that people on both sides of the chamber have made utterly lunatic comments in this regard. It's Cameron who is implementing it. So that's a given. His justification for censoring ALL internet pornography by the way is to 'protect childhood innocence' "I'm not making this speech because I want to moralise or scaremonger, but because I feel profoundly as a politician, and as a father, that the time for action has come. This is, quite simply, about how we protect our children and their innocence." Which has nothing whatsover to do with child abuse or actual or depicted 'rape'. He wants to prevent EVERYONE from viewing ALL pornography unless they specifically OPT IN, and presumably have their identity/age verified. Put aside the rape/abuse argument for a moment, it's a red herring to justify the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_GradualCringe_* Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 It's Cameron who is implementing it. So that's a given. His justification for censoring ALL internet pornography by the way is to 'protect childhood innocence' Which has nothing whatsover to do with child abuse or actual or depicted 'rape'. He wants to prevent EVERYONE from viewing ALL pornography unless they specifically OPT IN, and presumably have their identity/age verified. Put aside the rape/abuse argument for a moment, it's a red herring to justify the law. I completely agree, unfortunately your original comments were really besides the point: Right wing nutters shut down internet.Amusing that the free marketeer right though it would be the socialists! It's not a right vs left debate, it seems, and rather scarily, the entire chamber is in favour of this stupidty: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23393851 From the link: "Labour said the PM's plans did not go "far enough" and criticised cuts to online child abuse policing budgets." p.s. I do think you make some interesting points when you are not making party political comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuggets Mahoney Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 It's not a right vs left debate, is seems the entire chamber is in favour of this stupidty: I'm waiting to see what the Purple Team says about this issue and go along with that. Everyone knows they're the best. edit: p.s. I do think you make some interesting points when you are not making party political comments. The raison d'etre for party politics in a nutshell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 I completely agree, unfortunately your original comments were really besides the point: It's not a right vs left debate, is seems the entire chamber is in favour of this stupidty: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23393851 From the link: "Labour said the PM's plans did not go "far enough" and criticised cuts to online child abuse policing budgets." Yep. Puritanical right wingers and left wing feminazi's who probably think the hijab is a sign of womens empowerment. They can all go to hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Yep. Puritanical right wingers and left wing feminazi's who probably think the hijab is a sign of womens empowerment. They can all go to hell. I doubt they can all go. There wouldn't be room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.