Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19
810 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 191
Inactive user


  Reply # 866750 26-Jul-2013 18:01
Send private message

insane: I think it would be interesting to get comments from the wife's and children of contributors of this thread to get a balanced view on the matter.

A bunch of guys discussing whether they should be able to view porn is rather predictive.


I don't have a SO, by choice and by the choice of %101 of NZ females. Same re children. My mum finds most mainstream porn silly and laughable, but she did used to visit the spanking boards on Yahoo, write some erotic fiction of her own, etc. I clean at a motel and most of my female co-workers don't seem to care one way or the other about porn, although some will actually take what they find home. At one point there was an order book for various sex toys in the staff room, I'm not sure who was selling them (it wasn't a commercially printed book, so somewhere there was selling).

In my life experience porn is mostly a non-issue.

703 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 67

Trusted

  Reply # 866763 26-Jul-2013 18:19
One person supports this post
Send private message

Klipspringer:
Brendan: You hold an unfounded belief at the heart of your debate. <SNIP...

There is no evidence to support your claim. And note: for such an important
matter as universal censorship, we will accept only the most robust, scientific
and peer reviewed studies and will need a few of them, spanning decades of
research. Gold Standard.


It sounds like you asking for evidence of absence. (Proving the impossible)

You cannot prove that something is NOT there.

You therefore cannot prove that porn is NOT harmful to young kids. You wasting your time if you asking, or expecting such a study.

You can however prove that something is harmful. Plenty of studies out there that porn is harmful for young children.



Since no one else has apparently noticed your attempt at mis-representing my argument (e.g. you made a strawman argument), I will call you out on it. I will use small, easy to understand words.

1. Your concept of proving a negative is faulty and illogical. You do not understand it, or you are being deceptive. E.g. it is misapplied here.

2. You were asked to provide substantiation on YOUR CLAIM: e.g. that porn is harmful. You FAILED. (Half baked adverts from filter companies DO NOT COUNT).

3. You said it yourself: "you can prove something is harmful". So, where is this proof, as I originally requested?


I entered into this debate with you Klipspringer assuming a man of reasonable intelligence and honest character. Is this not the case?


Klipspringer: Children Are Severely Victimized by Pornography


Brendan:
What we don't get is why you insist people having sex is bad. Maybe you can
explain?

Is the sexual act itself bad?

Or just certain types of sexual act?

Or is it pictures of the sexual act that are bad, but the sex is ok?

Is the sexual imagery bad when it is in written form? Or just audio?

At what age is someone allowed to see sexual acts without harm, and what do you
base that on?

How many viewings of sexual activity does it take to injure a child? How do you
define and quantify the injury?


I love sex.

Read the article I posted earlier on netnanny. (Recommended by
fellow geekzones users).


Your slippery behavior is becoming very apparent Klipspringer. You did not answer the questions and instead substituted your own, easier one.

You of course have the right to not answer. We will know what that means.

At some point even you must realize your position in indefensible. An honest man, confronted with that, would re-evaluate his beliefs. A dishonest man will simply pretend there was never a problem.


703 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 67

Trusted

  Reply # 866769 26-Jul-2013 18:41
2 people support this post
Send private message

insane: I think it would be interesting to get comments from the wife's and children of contributors of this thread to get a balanced view on the matter.

A bunch of guys discussing whether they should be able to view porn is rather predictive.


My Partner likes it more than I do. My female friend regularly borrows ours.

I think it's interesting how women have become more likely to view porn or participate in cybersex with the advent of the internet. I've asked a few of them why this is so, and the general consensus is thus:

1. Safety.
2. No stigma / confidential.

To me, it makes perfect sense. The Victorian idea (inherited, true) of the female being sexually inert has long since been dis-proven but that attitude still persists in some backwards areas of society. (For a real laugh, look up "hysteria" and the "treatments" of this condition during Victorian times).

Frankly it boggles the mind: here we have a pleasurable activity, that has been practiced for at least 600 million years (or whenever sexual reproduction was 'invented'), and is imperative for the survival of our species as it currently stands. It's free, and the production of off-spring is even largely controllable. It's good for the health, and the mind. It promotes a compassionate, tolerant society (re: effects of oxytocin, and studies of bonobo troupes).

And yet: we have managed to put artificial problems into it. "it is harmful to children". "Gay sex is unnatural and dirty". "Women shouldn't like sex or they are bad". "Pictures of people having sex will corrupt the young".

It's almost as if there was some force, some secret organisation influencing the behavior of mankind down the centuries for some fiscal or temporal benefit to a mighty few.

Oh wait. There is.


Webhead
2080 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 673

Moderator
Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 866951 27-Jul-2013 02:02
Send private message

And there is this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23452097

The filter prime minister Cameron is praising so much is from chinese Huawei. So good luck on being censored (and probably monitored) by the chinese!




150 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 11
Inactive user


  Reply # 866953 27-Jul-2013 02:24
Send private message

If we listened to all these backwards people who say sex is bad don't have sex (Which is healthy and your mother had sex for you to be born into the world) the human race would become extinct.... Im glad we don't have morons who are A-sexual running our countries, Imagine how fast the world would die off if A-sexual people got control.

I think these porn filter people are either "virgins or really ugly" and have never even been kissed so they want to ruin the world for everyone else so they can boost their low self esteem... pretty sad imo.


3658 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2178

Trusted
Spark NZ

  Reply # 866993 27-Jul-2013 10:37
One person supports this post
Send private message

AppleJackXD: If we listened to all these backwards people who say sex is bad don't have sex (Which is healthy and your mother had sex for you to be born into the world) the human race would become extinct.... Im glad we don't have morons who are A-sexual running our countries, Imagine how fast the world would die off if A-sexual people got control.

I think these porn filter people are either "virgins or really ugly" and have never even been kissed so they want to ruin the world for everyone else so they can boost their low self esteem... pretty sad imo.



wrong wrong wrong wrong and insulting.

I'm strongly against the porn filter being automatically applied to everyone, but your comments show a hideous lack of understanding.

Religious people strongly opposed to pornography or pre-marital sex etc are in no way automatically 'A-sexual' (sic).

You need to accept everything you wrote in your post is wrong and misguided.

Cheers - N


703 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 67

Trusted

  Reply # 867058 27-Jul-2013 14:38
4 people support this post
Send private message

Further to the subject, as predictated the UK porn filter will include other, undisclosed subjects, and doubtless John Key will follow suit just as quickly as his little legs will take him.

Welcome to 1984.

UK Porn Filter Will Censor Other Content Too, ISPs Reveal


2534 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1196


  Reply # 867140 27-Jul-2013 17:48
7 people support this post
Send private message

About the only positive benefit I can see from this proposal is that it will spur the development of computer skills in teenagers as they quickly master what they need to know to go around this absurdity.

It will cost a lot of money, interfere with legitimate use of the internet, crimp free speech and trample over peoples rights. About the only thing it won't do is successfully block what it sets out to block. If the Chinese government can't robustly block the things it doesn't like, with all the coercive powers and resources it is prepared to throw at the problem, then I doubt the UK will be able to succeed.

The technically literate kids will go around it quickly. The technically illiterate kids will take a bit longer as they will need to be shown and/or just view it on a mates machine or get it circulated from others. Back in the pre-tech days I remember the first time I ever saw an adult mag - aged about eight when one of the other kids (a church ministers daughter in fact!) brought daddy's stash to school. Same principle, except now it will be on a USB stick or a directory on the memory card of their phone.

A high proportion of adults on the other hand, will likely lose their access to legal material and lack the knowledge they need to get it back. Also, crappy parents will have yet another excuse to be even worse guardians of their children, and will be less vigilant about doing their job, safe in the false comfort that the "gummint" will do it all for them.

In short, it will be an expensive and annoying exercise in curtailing civil liberties, without having much of an impact on what it is trying to achieve.

3287 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1789

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 867247 27-Jul-2013 23:06
Send private message

Brendan: Further to the subject, as predictated the UK porn filter will include other, undisclosed subjects, and doubtless John Key will follow suit just as quickly as his little legs will take him.

Welcome to 1984.

UK Porn Filter Will Censor Other Content Too, ISPs Reveal



And the UK government has gone out of its way to take firearms off its population so it's incapable of resisting. One of the few things the USA has going for it is they still have enough guns left in private hands to have some hope of overthrowing the government if it tried to pull stunts like this.







Information wants to be free. The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.


1359 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 344


  Reply # 867253 27-Jul-2013 23:49
Send private message

Lias:
Brendan: Further to the subject, as predictated the UK porn filter will include other, undisclosed subjects, and doubtless John Key will follow suit just as quickly as his little legs will take him.

Welcome to 1984.

UK Porn Filter Will Censor Other Content Too, ISPs Reveal



And the UK government has gone out of its way to take firearms off its population so it's incapable of resisting. One of the few things the USA has going for it is they still have enough guns left in private hands to have some hope of overthrowing the government if it tried to pull stunts like this.



That made me chuckle,  chew on paint chips as a kid did you?  The UK government de-armed it's population to stop being overthrown?????   Cccccoooooookkkkkkkkkoooooooooooo!!!!

810 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 191
Inactive user


  Reply # 867254 27-Jul-2013 23:50
Send private message

Lias:
Brendan: Further to the subject, as predictated the UK porn filter will include other, undisclosed subjects, and doubtless John Key will follow suit just as quickly as his little legs will take him.

Welcome to 1984.

UK Porn Filter Will Censor Other Content Too, ISPs Reveal



And the UK government has gone out of its way to take firearms off its population so it's incapable of resisting. One of the few things the USA has going for it is they still have enough guns left in private hands to have some hope of overthrowing the government if it tried to pull stunts like this.





Careful talking like that, or you might not get your firearms license/have it revoked.

810 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 191
Inactive user


  Reply # 867255 27-Jul-2013 23:52
Send private message

Mark:
Lias:
Brendan: Further to the subject, as predictated the UK porn filter will include other, undisclosed subjects, and doubtless John Key will follow suit just as quickly as his little legs will take him.

Welcome to 1984.

UK Porn Filter Will Censor Other Content Too, ISPs Reveal



And the UK government has gone out of its way to take firearms off its population so it's incapable of resisting. One of the few things the USA has going for it is they still have enough guns left in private hands to have some hope of overthrowing the government if it tried to pull stunts like this.



That made me chuckle,  chew on paint chips as a kid did you?  The UK government de-armed it's population to stop being overthrown?????   Cccccoooooookkkkkkkkkoooooooooooo!!!!


What's so funny? Tame Iti ring a bell??

Great, now this thread's crossing with the GCSB thread...

3055 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1538


  Reply # 867280 28-Jul-2013 08:15
2 people support this post
Send private message

I had to laugh, I was having a quick look through GZ threads while having a cuppa at work, clicked on this one (as any man would) and GZ immediately got banned on the work network...I guess the key word 'pornography' set off the access management software's alarm bells.

I guess a (minor) example of how this type of software with the best of intentions can not really work as planned?

No more GZ at work for me :-(





Always be yourself, unless you can be Batman, then always be the Batman



3122 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 946

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 867377 28-Jul-2013 14:08
Send private message

Maybe the ISP's should block or throttle all traffic to Government websites for a day? - let them get a feel for how censorship can seriously hurt unintended parties.. It doesn't matter how much sparkly "good intention" you sprinkle on this, it's still a turd underneath.

150 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 11
Inactive user


  Reply # 867378 28-Jul-2013 14:10
Send private message


Above is a perfect example of why this is stupid ^ ^ ^

What if some kid wanted to do say a school project about Prawns ? I know the filter will mistake a prawn for some porn..... lol

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.