Porn to be opt-in in the UK

[dbgtz]

Atleast when governments restrict drug access its because they're doing it because they feel drug users pose a threat to themselves and to others physically. Can somebody explain to me how person A looking at porn hurts person B?

Seriously, who elected your government? This is the stupidest idea I have heard of since the idea to elect a Republican as President of the Untied States (Yes, Dan now I'm just messing with you although if Mitt Romney were to win I'd never visit the States again).

I can see the appeal to blocking access to piracy websites like the Pirate Bay so the UK can protect its own media industry but banning porn unless you opt-in? Really? I guess its a sad day to be a guy in the UK (note to Matt and Tom: uck).



I don't agree with him but if I was to reply directly to him I would reply to his points, and not just randomly insult him. If you have some merit or some point(s) to contribute to the conversation then contribute them and then make your rude statement. Doing the latter without the foremost is just idiotic.

One fault, Ron Paul was a Republican and he would have done a better job then any other candidate in this election

Correlation does not imply causation.

Yeah but knowledge is a power. Also when you learn something new which is interesting, then you generally try to use this knowledge so why would certain people learn about sex at age 12 or whatever and with that knowledge then say "I'm going to wait until I'm X old". With certain people, it just doesn't work like that. I personally wouldn't say it's the only reason, but it is one of them. There's also the media with posters of half naked people and the easy accessibility of pornography which is what is being tackled by this move. However, this is only being implemented because of a certain group of parents who are incompetent and a system should only work as an opt-out. Realistically, neither system would really work.

[Firehorse]

Sorry but I disagree that the minimum wage is a bad thing - most of what you point is a bad but the minimum wage prevents companies abusing people by being able to pay them far less than they are worth. Sadly stuff like this still happens abroad such as China in factories but at least here in the UK it works.

I think the porn idea is a bad one because it takes the responsibility away from the parents. Parents will like this but a lot of parents don't really understand the internet so rather than trying to understand and get to grips with it, looking at what their children use and preventing them, warning them about the bad stuff, they'd rather someone else does it. There are always work arounds to.

The minimum wage is both a good thing and a bad thing. The good part is that in certain areas it stops people being paid less than they can live on. The bad part is it acts like a guideline of what to pay somebody. You can live on the minimum wage in most parts of the UK, but it's nowhere near enough if you're living in a place like London (the minimum living wage in London is closer to £8.20, but because there's no law enforcing this companies still pay as little as they can, without a minimum wage companies would be more likely to set wages depending on what people would be willing to work for. The issue here would be immigrants who will work for almost nothing, which would need to be tackled another way). The minimum wage also encourages illegal employment, as there will always be people looking to pay less no matter what the law is, and this means that tax is also avoided and jobs which would otherwise be legitimate are carried out without regulation.

[HotelUser]

One fault, Ron Paul was a Republican and he would have done a better job then any other candidate in this election



Yeah but knowledge is a power. Also when you learn something new which is interesting, then you generally try to use this knowledge so why would certain people learn about sex at age 12 or whatever and with that knowledge then say "I'm going to wait until I'm X old". With certain people, it just doesn't work like that. I personally wouldn't say it's the only reason, but it is one of them. There's also the media with posters of half naked people and the easy accessibility of pornography which is what is being tackled by this move. However, this is only being implemented because of a certain group of parents who are incompetent and a system should only work as an opt-out. Realistically, neither system would really work.

He was much more genuine and sincere with voicing his own opinions versus the opinions of his party and this was his undoing. Regardless I want no Republican to win this election because it would put the improved healthcare system in jeopardy.

One could argue that porn and exposing younger children to sexual images in general makes children 'grow up' faster and be more likely to engage in sexual acts which leads to teenage pregnancies, more abortions and more sexual diseases. Indeed, the evidence shows that since the 1960s and the introduction of sex education (which is much milder than pornography) the number of all of what I have listed has increased and not decreased.

That is an argument for banning porn, one I happen to agree with in regards to the effects. I also happen to agree with your argument on drug usage, I myself think drugs are incredibly dangerous and ruin lives. However my point is this - that what we think oughtn't to matter in a free society, because where we can we should live by our own standards and morals and allow others who disagree to live by their own. That is liberty, that is freedom.

In the same argument on homosexuality and numerous other topics, whether we think it is moral/safe/right or not should not matter - it is not the business of the state to impose our morality on others.

Agreed in the fact that it's absolutely none of the state's business as to whether or not we look at porn or partake in non-Jesus approved sex. If looking at porn is harmful psychologically to youths then that's a family manner which parents can address, not one the state should be involved in. As far as smoking cigarettes and smoking weed goes I do not personally condone either activity although again I think that's something best left as a family issue. In terms of drugs where physical addictions can ensue, I feel a line should be drawn and these should remain illegal substances for the sheer fact that with a physical addiction comes a slew of crime necessary in many cases to fund said addiction which hurts the community. The rights to life liberty and security of the many outweigh the rights of freedom of expression of the few

[Chippiewill]

Correct and I should have included that, although it does hint at a strong link

It does nothing of the sort considering hint and imply are synonyms.