Society evolves. If you'd said 10 years ago that people would be controlled on where they could smoke - a perfectly legal activity - you would have laughed. But here we are, we are controlled not because of what WE do, but because of the harm those activities can inflict on others.
No child of mine needs to see porn, so making it an opt in system doesn't prevent those who want to see it, and it makes life a lot easier for those who don't want their family accessing it.
I hope the same thing comes in for phones.
Smoking kills. Second hand smoke damages others.
Having a wank or watching a porno with your partner is not going to cause anyone in your vicinity to develop lung cancer or emphysema.
Your comparison has no basis in terms of logical comparisons because there are no clear health risks to watching pornography in a private setting.
Now, if we are going to start using all caps for emphasis, let's play that game.
Now, as for this WE, you have no right to speak for ME. I don't know YOU. YOU have nothing to do with ME PERSONALLY. YOU have no right to tell ME what to do with MY time, MY money or MY property. WE are not the same person and WE are not going to be the SAME PERSON in terms of PERSONAL PREFERENCES.
If YOU don't want your child to see porn, YOU can go buy software for YOUR computer to prevent YOUR child from using YOUR internet browser and YOUR internet connection to view porn in YOUR HOME. YOU have the PERSONAL CHOICE to purchase any of the 30 or so products for PERSONAL COMPUTERS available commercially so YOUR CHILD can't see what YOU don't want YOUR CHILD to see.
YOU know why?
YOU have the choice to do what YOU want with YOUR property in YOUR home and it is YOUR child to raise according to YOUR PERSONAL STANDARDS.
Now, do YOU understand what I am trying to express here?
It should be up to YOU to be responsible for YOU, YOUR HOME and YOUR FAMILY.
It's called PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY.
Do YOU understand that concept?
As for society evolving?
CENSORSHIP OF PORNOGRAPHY IS AN ANCIENT CONCEPT ENFORCED IN THE DARK AGES.
This is social regression by 500 years or so. Not progress.
It is the reason works of art were burned and mutilated, why books were burned and artists exiled.
You're not making any sense because you don't seem to know what you are talking about.
So how do you stop a 15yr old buying a pay as you go Sim for his smartphone, GiffGaff or whatever, and then calling up to have the porn unblocked ~ it's not workable.
I do think this is an excellent idea. I myself have accidentally viewed porn while shopping for wool on line (sounds incredible doesn't?) This will also stop men viewing porn at the work place. My husband found out one of his colleagues had been viewing pornography instead working in his office. Some disgusting images were found on his laptop and experts were brought in to get rid of all the viruses this porn had brought to the office system.
I do think this is an excellent idea. I myself have accidentally viewed porn while shopping for wool on line (sounds incredible doesn't?) This will also stop men viewing porn at the work place. My husband found out one of his colleagues had been viewing pornography instead working in his office. Some disgusting images were found on his laptop and experts were brought in to get rid of all the viruses this porn had brought to the office system.
...
Are you serious?
Most private intranet systems have porn blocks in place. That your husband's employer chose not to purchase them might have been a mistake on their part and likely one they amended, but because one person does something inappropriate at work, the entire country should be deprived of adult entertainment?
By that logic if one person stabs another, we should all go to prison. You know, just in case another one of us stabs someone. We better all be put away for our own safety.
Most private intranet systems have porn blocks in place. That your husband's employer chose not to purchase them might have been a mistake on their part and likely one they amended, but because one person does something inappropriate at work, the entire country should be deprived of adult entertainment?
By that logic if one person stabs another, we should all go to prison. You know, just in case another one of us stabs someone. We better all be put away for our own safety.
This was a small firm and the man concerned was infact a manager and an IT expert ... he no longer works there thank goodness.
Maybe parents should, y'know, just take some responsibility for monitoring what their kids get up to and perhaps set up filters of their own. Radical idea, I know.
That would mean not letting them have a mobile phone ( with the Internet ) until they turn 18. It's been said many times that a lot of parents aren't as savvy with the Internet as their kids. They also can't monitor what their kids see on friends' mobile phones.
I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand graphic porn on the Internet is worlds away from the naughty photos seen in mags back in the 80's and I believe one 15 year old girl told her mother that she never wanted to have sex after seeing porn on the Internet, so it might be a good thing.
On the other hand, adults who watch porn but don't want their partners finding out ( or anyone they happen to live with ) could have their ability to watch porn taken away and I'm not sure that's OK. People who aren't in a relationship have sexual needs too but they often don't want others finding out that they watch porn.
I agree that porn involving violence should be harder to access.
This was a small firm and the man concerned was infact a manager and an IT expert ... he no longer works there thank goodness.
But if anyone at the office could access the porn, why didn't the fire everyone just in case, shut down the business and reinvest in an enterprise such as carpentry that only requires manual work and no access to the internet?
This is what used to be called throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Now apparently the bath, the water supply and the faucet are all considered too dangerous for the baby so it's going to need to learn to live without any sort of basic facilities just in case it might accidentally drown or get scalded by water too hot for it and we'll need a government license in order to even be considered to be allowed to bathe an infant, even our own. You know, because who knows, you might choose to abuse your own child and the government has decided since that's highly likely, you can't be trusted.
I do realize that "some" men need to view porn because they are not having a fulfilling sex life with a normal woman. So perhaps the government will think of some system that allows these kinds of men access to porn.
Has anyone ever watched the film "Shame"? The guy concerned was a porn addict imho
I think in the film, he is supposed to be a sex addict, evidenced by the fact he needed hookers or porn at all times and had trouble forming meaningful relationships. I have to say, I thought the guy was fairly typical
But if anyone at the office could access the porn, why didn't the fire everyone just in case, shut down the business and reinvest in an enterprise such as carpentry that only requires manual work and no access to the internet?
This is what used to be called throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Now apparently the bath, the water supply and the faucet are all considered too dangerous for the baby so it's going to need to learn to live without any sort of basic facilities just in case it might accidentally drown or get scalded by water too hot for it and we'll need a government license in order to even be considered to be allowed to bathe an infant, even our own. You know, because who knows, you might choose to abuse your own child and the government has decided since that's highly likely, you can't be trusted.
The other people who worked at the office were much too busy working to view porn. Beside the man concerned had actually set up the system. I myself thought there was something "shifty" about this man. We also found out he had been visiting lap dancing places during his lunch hour.
I do realize that "some" men need to view porn because they are not having a fulfilling sex life with a normal woman. So perhaps the government will think of some system that allows these kinds of men access to porn.
... So you are content to see a supposed capitalist democracy become a dictatorship where private citizens lose their personal civil liberties just in case they might make a bad decision because there are some bad people out there?
So, let me ask you directly. Let's say your neighbour is arrested for domestic spousal abuse. He is not proven guilty, merely arrested and taken into custody for further questioning. Should all of the men on your street also be locked up and all the women put into women's shelters for domestic abuse just in case?
I think in the film, he is supposed to be a sex addict, evidenced by the fact he needed hookers or porn at all times and had trouble forming meaningful relationships. I have to say, I thought the guy was fairly typical
Typical of who? I thought he was a bit off a pervert to be honest.
The other people who worked at the office were much too busy working to view porn. Beside the man concerned had actually set up the system. I myself thought there was something "shifty" about this man. We also found out he had been visiting lap dancing places during his lunch hour.
You didn't answer my question. Please try to do so.
Should the business have shut down and became a carpenters workshop after laying off all the other staff just in case they decided to use the internet to view porn at a later date because one person chose to?
Please answer the question. I am trying to see how far you think this kind of logic is acceptable.
... So you are content to see a supposed capitalist democracy become a dictatorship where private citizens lose their personal civil liberties just in case they might make a bad decision because there are some bad people out there?
So, let me ask you directly. Let's say your neighbour is arrested for domestic spousal abuse. He is not proven guilty, merely arrested and taken into custody for further questioning. Should all of the men on your street also be locked up and all the women put into women's shelters for domestic abuse just in case?
No comparison imo ... what has beating up your wife got to do with masturbating to internet porn?
You didn't answer my question. Please try to do so.
Should the business have shut down and became a carpenters workshop after laying off all the other staff just in case they decided to use the internet to view porn at a later date because one person chose to?
Please answer the question. I am trying to see how far you think this kind of logic is acceptable.
What was also shocking was this individual had actually got a credit card charged to the company which he was using to pay for porn. I feel sorry for his poor wife she has no idea what kind of man she was married to.
No comparison imo ... what has beating up your wife got to do with masturbating to internet porn?
... Okay, you seem to be having some difficulties here. Let me put it simply.
I am trying to see how far you find the idea of punishing the majority for the acts of a minority and how much government intervention and deprivation of personal choice and civil liberties based on paranoid suspicion is acceptable.
I didn't say he had beaten his wife in the hypothetical scenario, only arrested and taken for questioning. No proof of guilt obtained and no judgement decreed.
However to take such drastic preventative measures based purely on suspicion is excessive and invasive. To sequester all the women in shelters and send all the other husbands into custody just in case is ignorant, disrespectful, excessive, paranoid and judgmental.
Now, can you answer the questions please rather than asking more questions?
Thank you.
EDIT: It seems you can't answer my questions, only provide further statements and questions rather than answers. Okay, I think we're done here. Thank you for your time.
Typical of who? I thought he was a bit off a pervert to be honest.
Typical of many men imo Perhaps not so much with the porn at work and hookers, or the gay scene, but as for the porn usage as soon as anyones back is turned thing, I'd say it's fairly typical!
Watching porn is not a perversion. Since most people will have watched porn before, many even watch it regularly. A perversion is something outside the norm, which that isn't.
I haven`t read all the posts so please excuse me if others have already said the same but if Cameron is serious about stopping children looking as sexual imagery that demeans women he should tell his puppet master Rupert Murdoch to cease putting semi naked women on page three of his `paper`.
I haven`t read all the posts so please excuse me if others have already said the same but if Cameron is serious about stopping children looking as sexual imagery that demeans women he should tell his puppet master Rupert Murdoch to cease putting semi naked women on page three of his `paper`.
No offense intended by seeming to be patronising, who do you think has the dwindling and besmirched print and televisual empire that would benefit from the loss of freely accessible internet based adult entertainment if people were forced back into buying porn magazines and PPV channels?
I do think this is an excellent idea. I myself have accidentally viewed porn while shopping for wool on line (sounds incredible doesn't?) This will also stop men viewing porn at the work place. My husband found out one of his colleagues had been viewing pornography instead working in his office. Some disgusting images were found on his laptop and experts were brought in to get rid of all the viruses this porn had brought to the office system.
Have you been paid by The Daily Mail to post that? (You forgot to mention "funds terrorism" somewhere along the line)
Comments
Smoking kills. Second hand smoke damages others.
Having a wank or watching a porno with your partner is not going to cause anyone in your vicinity to develop lung cancer or emphysema.
Your comparison has no basis in terms of logical comparisons because there are no clear health risks to watching pornography in a private setting.
Now, if we are going to start using all caps for emphasis, let's play that game.
Now, as for this WE, you have no right to speak for ME. I don't know YOU. YOU have nothing to do with ME PERSONALLY. YOU have no right to tell ME what to do with MY time, MY money or MY property. WE are not the same person and WE are not going to be the SAME PERSON in terms of PERSONAL PREFERENCES.
If YOU don't want your child to see porn, YOU can go buy software for YOUR computer to prevent YOUR child from using YOUR internet browser and YOUR internet connection to view porn in YOUR HOME. YOU have the PERSONAL CHOICE to purchase any of the 30 or so products for PERSONAL COMPUTERS available commercially so YOUR CHILD can't see what YOU don't want YOUR CHILD to see.
YOU know why?
YOU have the choice to do what YOU want with YOUR property in YOUR home and it is YOUR child to raise according to YOUR PERSONAL STANDARDS.
Now, do YOU understand what I am trying to express here?
It should be up to YOU to be responsible for YOU, YOUR HOME and YOUR FAMILY.
It's called PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY.
Do YOU understand that concept?
As for society evolving?
CENSORSHIP OF PORNOGRAPHY IS AN ANCIENT CONCEPT ENFORCED IN THE DARK AGES.
This is social regression by 500 years or so. Not progress.
It is the reason works of art were burned and mutilated, why books were burned and artists exiled.
You're not making any sense because you don't seem to know what you are talking about.
Wife: Who was that you were on the phone to, dear?
Husband: erm.... Err... I was just calling the ISP to get our porn block lifted.
Wife: ......
...
Are you serious?
Most private intranet systems have porn blocks in place. That your husband's employer chose not to purchase them might have been a mistake on their part and likely one they amended, but because one person does something inappropriate at work, the entire country should be deprived of adult entertainment?
By that logic if one person stabs another, we should all go to prison. You know, just in case another one of us stabs someone. We better all be put away for our own safety.
This was a small firm and the man concerned was infact a manager and an IT expert ... he no longer works there thank goodness.
That would mean not letting them have a mobile phone ( with the Internet ) until they turn 18. It's been said many times that a lot of parents aren't as savvy with the Internet as their kids. They also can't monitor what their kids see on friends' mobile phones.
I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand graphic porn on the Internet is worlds away from the naughty photos seen in mags back in the 80's and I believe one 15 year old girl told her mother that she never wanted to have sex after seeing porn on the Internet, so it might be a good thing.
On the other hand, adults who watch porn but don't want their partners finding out ( or anyone they happen to live with ) could have their ability to watch porn taken away and I'm not sure that's OK. People who aren't in a relationship have sexual needs too but they often don't want others finding out that they watch porn.
I agree that porn involving violence should be harder to access.
But if anyone at the office could access the porn, why didn't the fire everyone just in case, shut down the business and reinvest in an enterprise such as carpentry that only requires manual work and no access to the internet?
This is what used to be called throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Now apparently the bath, the water supply and the faucet are all considered too dangerous for the baby so it's going to need to learn to live without any sort of basic facilities just in case it might accidentally drown or get scalded by water too hot for it and we'll need a government license in order to even be considered to be allowed to bathe an infant, even our own. You know, because who knows, you might choose to abuse your own child and the government has decided since that's highly likely, you can't be trusted.
I think in the film, he is supposed to be a sex addict, evidenced by the fact he needed hookers or porn at all times and had trouble forming meaningful relationships. I have to say, I thought the guy was fairly typical
Good idea.
The other people who worked at the office were much too busy working to view porn. Beside the man concerned had actually set up the system. I myself thought there was something "shifty" about this man. We also found out he had been visiting lap dancing places during his lunch hour.
... So you are content to see a supposed capitalist democracy become a dictatorship where private citizens lose their personal civil liberties just in case they might make a bad decision because there are some bad people out there?
So, let me ask you directly. Let's say your neighbour is arrested for domestic spousal abuse. He is not proven guilty, merely arrested and taken into custody for further questioning. Should all of the men on your street also be locked up and all the women put into women's shelters for domestic abuse just in case?
Typical of who? I thought he was a bit off a pervert to be honest.
You didn't answer my question. Please try to do so.
Should the business have shut down and became a carpenters workshop after laying off all the other staff just in case they decided to use the internet to view porn at a later date because one person chose to?
Please answer the question. I am trying to see how far you think this kind of logic is acceptable.
No comparison imo ... what has beating up your wife got to do with masturbating to internet porn?
What was also shocking was this individual had actually got a credit card charged to the company which he was using to pay for porn. I feel sorry for his poor wife she has no idea what kind of man she was married to.
... Okay, you seem to be having some difficulties here. Let me put it simply.
I am trying to see how far you find the idea of punishing the majority for the acts of a minority and how much government intervention and deprivation of personal choice and civil liberties based on paranoid suspicion is acceptable.
I didn't say he had beaten his wife in the hypothetical scenario, only arrested and taken for questioning. No proof of guilt obtained and no judgement decreed.
However to take such drastic preventative measures based purely on suspicion is excessive and invasive. To sequester all the women in shelters and send all the other husbands into custody just in case is ignorant, disrespectful, excessive, paranoid and judgmental.
Now, can you answer the questions please rather than asking more questions?
Thank you.
EDIT: It seems you can't answer my questions, only provide further statements and questions rather than answers. Okay, I think we're done here. Thank you for your time.
Typical of many men imo
Watching porn is not a perversion. Since most people will have watched porn before, many even watch it regularly. A perversion is something outside the norm, which that isn't.
So only landlines ? Not smartphones :rolleyes:
No offense intended by seeming to be patronising, who do you think has the dwindling and besmirched print and televisual empire that would benefit from the loss of freely accessible internet based adult entertainment if people were forced back into buying porn magazines and PPV channels?
HINT: His name rhymes with Rupert Murdoch.
Have you been paid by The Daily Mail to post that? (You forgot to mention "funds terrorism" somewhere along the line)
I'd be delighted if somebody were to censor you.:p