Porn site age-check law demanded by media regulator

[xxMATTGxx]

If we put money on the amount of times Undertaker decides to bring "smoking" in anything to do with internet censorship we would be rich. :rolleyes:

[GommeInc]

I wouldn't say his argument is entirely worthless I agree that pub owners should be able to allow smoking on/inside their property but as with everything proportionality is important - so both arguments for and against are a bit tedious. A mixture of all factors should be taken into consideration.

Perhaps make smoking in pubs a really niche market? Maybe make it banned in either:
a) places were food is served (gastro pubs, restaurants and bars)
b) where children are expected customers/family orientated public houses

Essentially make it so places that allow smoking are places where it's just to drink and smoke, which used to be the trend years ago and then the mighty gastro pub came into existence.

That said, I think smoking is an out of date habit that should be eradicated and is starkly different to whacking* one out to pornography into the early hours of the next day - it's free (who pays?), it's not really addictive unless you have an addictive personality, it doesn't damage your health and is arguably good for you and the only concerns are the costs to relationships although quite a lot of couples tend to get inspiration from it - so it depends on the relationship and people on a case by case basis. Smoking seems objectively bad (health, cost, external factors), while pornography is subjectively bad depending on your view.

* - maths debating is apparently filtered

Also: Pornography keeps the Kleenex/tissue and toilet tissue market afloat.

[peteyt]

No it's not the same and you're stupid if you can't comprehend the fact that smoking has measured damaging effects to the health of not only those smoking but also those around you. There is not such data or evidence for your example with porn (which is credible). This is the same as your gun vs knife argument where you're clearly unwilling to acknowledge the differences between the two situations and are merely seeing it as banning something without acknowledging the damage these things cause.



You clearly think every issue is black and white and that there are no differing factors which gives people different opinions as to what should be regulated by the state.

One could make an argument that porn is dangerous to marriage/children and that we need to monitor the internet more anyway as it's dangerous for children/younger people with the amount of sleazy and weird men on the chatrooms etc. All of this of course is complete rubbish, as is the smoking argument you put forward - because as an adult, you have the choice whether to enter those private premises.

Don't like smoking? Don't enter land where it is permitted by the private owner.

Don't like porn? Don't watch it.

Again: hahaha. Watching you and others moan about a meddling state now with this issue (one which you happen to approve of) is delicious to watch.

While I do agree Smoking is more dangerous, at least passive smoking, I do think it should be up to the premises if people should smoke or not. A lot of pubs used to have designated smoking areas for this purpose, rather than trying to force them outside into the cold. It's like how some people prefer to smoke outside in their own house but some don't see it as a problem.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No it's not the same and you're stupid if you can't comprehend the fact that smoking has measured damaging effects to the health of not only those smoking but also those around you. There is not such data or evidence for your example with porn (which is credible). This is the same as your gun vs knife argument where you're clearly unwilling to acknowledge the differences between the two situations and are merely seeing it as banning something without acknowledging the damage these things cause.

But what do you not understand about the concept of private property and using your own free will to decide whether something is good or not? You do not have to enter a private pub if you do not like the smoke - therefore, why do you want it banned? The only reason you want it banned is because you yourself do not like it and feel that you have the moral right to impose your feelings on everybody else using the power of the state. But the problem is, there are many millions of people who disagree with you on other things (internet monitoring, phone tapping, porn, drugs etc) who are willing to do exactly the same to you.

If I don't want you watching pornography for whatever reason - and i'm not making that argument - then you have no moral leg to stand on when you cry 'oh your taking away my freedoms just because you do not like it' when you've done exactly the same with smokers when it comes to pubs and bars. You made your bed, now lay down on it. And again I cannot say it enough: ha ha ha.

You clearly think every issue is black and white and that there are no differing factors which gives people different opinions as to what should be regulated by the state.

That's called having principles and not being a hypocrite.

If we put money on the amount of times Undertaker decides to bring "smoking" in anything to do with internet censorship we would be rich. :rolleyes:

I take great delight in taking internet freedumb!!1111!!!1 hypocrites to task when they cry about their freedoms being lost.

[The Don]

Lol at you calling me a hypocrite when you were the one opposed to gay marriage. I'll reply in full when I'm home from work but you're trying to compare an argument about regulation whilst in the privacy of your own home to one about regulation in public places.