Porn to be opt-in in the UK

[-:Undertaker:-]

What has him not ever having a debate with you got to do with what he said? I think everyone knows you on the forum as the mass debater who shoots **** out of his penis

Because Tom speaks as though he is somebody well known for his well thought out and passionate opinions who is somehow above me, when in reality dear old Tom doesn't show any of those qualities. At least with the likes of FlyingJesus, Catzsy, GommeInc, Grig, alexxxx and many others you can say 'well I disagree with them but at least they put across a good argument and good points' - Tom has a long way to go before he meets the standards of those I mentioned and thus a long way to go before he can claim to even attempt to 'speak sense' to me.

[Recursion]

Because Tom speaks as though he is somebody well known for his well thought out and passionate opinions who is somehow above me, when in reality dear old Tom doesn't show any of those qualities. At least with the likes of FlyingJesus, Catzsy, GommeInc, Grig, alexxxx and many others you can say 'well I disagree with them but at least they put across a good argument and good points' - Tom has a long way to go before he meets the standards of those I mentioned and thus a long way to go before he can claim to even attempt to 'speak sense' to me.

Tomm generally does come across as intelligent and honestly is above any of us here by not arguing at all. What you call debating, isn't debating at all, it's arguing.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Tomm generally does come across as intelligent and honestly is above any of us here by not arguing at all. What you call debating, isn't debating at all, it's arguing.

I'm never the one to throw personal insults first and I attempt to stick to the subject rather than indulge in 'OMGZ DAILY FAIL POST AGAIN' which is the usual response I recieve - as I just discussed with nvrspk4 on my profile.

Indeed, you've just proved your own point by not debating the subject itself but preferring to argue over personalities.

When you or Tomm reply to the points of debate rather than focusing on my debate style, then we can have a rational discussion and debate. Until then, a great shame.

P.S. if anybody is going to respond, can they actually respond to the points I made (you know, a debate) as opposed to making diversions over nonsense. Tar.

[Jack!]

As for on topic, another stupid point, that people will find a way around should they need porn that bad.

[peteyt]

I don't think you quite understand the logic here, the logic is that you are telling business and individuals what to pay other people and ensuring they do so by force - whether you think it to be a good thing or not is irrelvent, just as in this case with online porn - the British Government here has decided that it is best for you and me to have controls on porn concerning the internet

But correct me if I'm wrong but go back 100 years or so or and didn't people have problems living on very low wages because there where no minimum wages. They are obviously there for a reason. Let's face it corporations can be greedy and from my experience in the few jobs I have had employers will try and save money any way possible. I feel with the amount of people needing jobs some would take anything and employers would abuse this by offering unreasonable pay and then we'd have loads of people living in poverty. Also with people living in poverty wouldn't that lead to declines in other things - with employers allowed to pay whatever they want if they paid basically crap there would be a lot of markets not selling as much. It's not as simple as you put it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

But correct me if I'm wrong but go back 100 years or so or and didn't people have problems living on very low wages because there where no minimum wages. They are obviously there for a reason. Let's face it corporations can be greedy and from my experience in the few jobs I have had employers will try and save money any way possible. I feel with the amount of people needing jobs some would take anything and employers would abuse this by offering unreasonable pay and then we'd have loads of people living in poverty. Also with people living in poverty wouldn't that lead to declines in other things - with employers allowed to pay whatever they want if they paid basically crap there would be a lot of markets not selling as much. It's not as simple as you put it.

This is a different topic but i'm glad you've picked up on a point and actually put thought into it, so thank you for that (it makes a nice change) and +rep.

But on the minimum wage, if we're to debate the merits of that policy I can do so with you and i'll respond to you via private message as i'd much rather this keep focused on the issue of freedom and internet safety as a general point. My point isn't on the merits of these policies (although I find the minimum wage negative, which i'll explain via PM as to why) but that by forcing employers (private individuals) to pay a certain wage and banning employees to work for less than a certain wage - you're constricting freedom, imposing your own standards of right and wrong and generally telling people what to do. I'll post the Friedman video though for people who are mildly interested on this topic.. (this specific topic would make a great debate)

In the same way that you enter a voluntary contract between yourself and your internet provider (which you have an entirely optional choice of whether to enter into agreement with them) it should also the case when you apply for a job - that you and the employer negotitate the wage, not the government. In the same way that the government shouldn't be imposing 'opt ins' on voluntary contracts between individuals and internet providers.

If an employer wants to offer a job for £3.00 an hour and I want that job, I should be able to accept it (voluntary contract between two parties).

If a internet provider wants to offer a contract with no opt in, I should be able to accept that (voluntary contract between two parties).

[HotelUser]

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).

There is no point even trying to speak sense to him, hence I never even bothered to reply.

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.

[-:Undertaker:-]

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?

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.

[Chippiewill]

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.

Correlation does not imply causation.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Correlation does not imply causation.

Correct and I should have included that, although it does hint at a strong link which I believe to be true from my own personal experience as well as general trends in sexual diseases, abortion and pregnancy from the pre-1960s period compared with the post-1960s period. I'd also add that even so, if the stated objectives of sex education were to reduce what I listed then by any means it has utterly failed. Even if you think of the last decade or two since the introduction of free condom schemes etc, the number of sexual diseases has increased dramatically.

But whatever we think of this topic, the moral is - stay out of other peoples business even if you think you know better than they do.

Hence why I have never taken drugs or even tried a cigarette despite being 19.