Porn Pass (age verification in the UK)

[James Regan]

All you have to do to get around the "porn pass" is use a vpn, this seems a little pointless with such an easy bypass

 

[mr moose]

15 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

But you do have to draw the line. If we discover that things like hip-hop music videos are also found to have similar effects as porn, do we introduce hip-hop viewing licenses? Right now the line is draw at pornographic websites, but that will probably change (just like the porn filter changed to include a lot of other things including certain political views and critique).

This is not a filter though, you cannot just extend it to other things, they would have to draw up an amendment to give themselves authority to include new definitions like hip hop so said website owners have to apply the new porn pass.  That can't just happen,  and again if they do try to add to it, then you have question the whole government, not just the party in power. and that means you have bigger problems and you were never in control of anyway.

Quote

Assuming this is actually in order to protect children, surely it would be weird to not change where the line was drawn assuming other evidence appears that the line is not in the right place?

But since the line is already infringing on peoples' freedoms there need to be a discussion of what is and isn't acceptable risks, as well as how much of a nanny state is necessary.

Again, if you want to argue what is infringing and what isn't then you can take it all the way to every law infringes.   That is a nonsense argument. The law that prevents me from pissing in the street infringes my personal freedom to spread disease.  

 

Quote

To take it to the extreme, if it is found that being exposed to swearing is bad for children, to what lengths should the government intervene to make sure children don't hear swearing? Right now they are doing it by age restricting media which contains it. Should the next step be outright banning it unless you have a swearing license? Maybe install microphones into peoples' homes and fine them if they swear where a child might hear it?

That's just an illogical step away from common sense.   This is nothing more than a way to help prevent minors from accessing porn without preventing everyone else from it too.

 

Quote

No, that is not how boiling a frog works. The entire point of boiling a frog is that people are less resistant to small changes. Taking away a large portion of someone's freedom is seen as something worse than taking away the same amount of freedom, but in 5 smaller steps.

I know what it means, you think it applies here but your fear is that people won;t realise they are slowly losing their freedom. That is a crap argument.  If you have a line that you don't want governments to cross and you can see that clearly what makes you think no one else does?  I have a line I won;t let my government cross, just because it is further back than yours doesn't mean I don't see it coming or won't put my foot down when necessary.

 

Quote

In the UK the porn filtering system has been changed something like 4 times already, and each time it has become more forceful and censored more things.

If we judge each change individually it is not that big of a deal, but once you combine them it is very scary and intrusive.

and? are you saying something about the people or the government?

 

Quote

What you have to look at is the cumulative result, not each individual change.

 

Why, what if people like some of the smaller first steps but not some to of the changes at the end?  You can't decide if something is bad based on assumptions about things that haven't happened.

Quote

 

Voting doesn't work because all parties are interested in controlling the citizens to some degree. It also assumes that people know what is best for them, which is not always the case.

Well, that's just nihilist approach and there is no debating that.

 

Quote

But the even bigger reason why voting won't work is because you can't make a decision on who to vote for just factoring in a single question. We'll have an election in Sweden this year, and I agree with some things and disagree with some things from each individual party. No matter who I vote for, I will essentially be voting for some changes I disagree with. There is no party which I think holds the right position for each question. I therefore have to choose which party I agree the most with (or think is the least awful). A lot of people do the same. So people who are against this system might still vote for the government who suggested it, because that government is seen as better in other areas.

Then start your own party or just  vote for the person you agree with most.  that's life, that's how communal survival works, get used to it because there isn't a better system on offer.

[asus killer]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

along with other programs like educating parents about technology and also developing better routers/modems with better parental guards will help even more. 

ok, if you assure me that something like this (not necessarily like this, but you get my point, a comprehensive approach to the problem) then i can understand it. But i seriously doubt it, they wont even be able to enforce the law in piratical terms let alone do some more time and money consuming measures.

 

Probably more along the lines of ... someone made a law in a piece of paper and they can all sleep safer at night, problem solved. "Kids don't see pron we made a law."

[LAwLz]

50 minutes ago, mr moose said:

They are not acting as if they are, you asked about accidental exposure, that is not the same as ongoing exposure.  There are no long term studies on accidental (limited) exposure, ther is a wealth of studies on ongoing exposure.

OK, got any good studies on ongoing exposure?

I assume this law is intended (if the politicians are to be believed) to combat both accidental and ongoing.

 

50 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You have been reading my posts yes?  I did actually mention in the post you quoted that most of the research indicates from about 12 on.  Obviously (or maybe not) that that changes with the individual with some not being ready until later but most being mostly ready by 16.  Keeping in mind that much of the older research was carried out on older porn which was quite sterile by today's standards.  Much less exposure to rape and brutal/submissive porn.

I see. Sorry but I might have missed that part of your post or not figured out that they were related.

If the benefits/drawbacks of watching porn starts becoming blurry at the age of 12 and forward then I think we should question our current age restriction of 18, rather than try and enforce it even harder.

Right now it seems like the UK government is working really hard to enforce something which may be needlessly restrictive and which is currently very broken/ignored.

 

50 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It is not Biased, it is a meta analysis, it references the research that you can read for yourself. The bit I highlighted was from a 20 year meta study covering adolescences.

Doesn't matter if it's a meta analysis or not. If it says that most studies found negative effects, but those negatives effects are things which are negative because of old-fashioned moral values (such as casual sex) then it's just garbage in, garbage out from the analysis.

Without mentioning what the "negative effects" the research found we can't actually judge if there were real negative effects, or just "negative" in the sense that they do not align with the more traditional views of sex (mostly based on religion).

 

 

50 minutes ago, mr moose said:

None of this is based on religious doctrine or old fashion ideals.  It is purely all derived from published research. 

The ideas that sex is immoral and should be prohibited are mostly based on religious ideas and old-fashioned moral values which has been carried over into modern day society. If a research paper defines having casual sex as negative then it is not based on science and research, it's based on that author's bias which most likely steps from the aforementioned sources.

It's not a coincident that countries with different religious cultures often differ when it comes to their views of sex, if you also take into consideration the influence western society have had on the "native culture".

 

 

50 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You have a degree in this?  You seem to be doing an aweful lot of dismissing and most of it isn't even regarding the core issues surround minors and exposure to porn.

I have years of experience when it comes to masturbation. You could call me a "masterdebater".

 

Anyway, I thought I asked for the core issues surrounding minors and exposure to porn but so far I have only gotten a generalized "it's bad" which seems to be based on subjective opinions regarding things such as casual sex.

I have absolutely no problem with casual sex, definitely not when it comes to myself but I don't have an issue with younger people having it either, as long as they are aware of how to do it properly (which is why I think sex-ed is extremely important). If two 15 year olds want to screw then I say let them. It's better to inform them how to do it properly rather than try to keep them in the dark about sex and hope that they don't start experimenting by themselves (which they will).

 

50 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I just linked you to a very large meta analysis that cites 20 year meta studies into the effects of porn. What more do you need, something that you can agree with perchance?

I want something which actually say what "bad effects" occur. I might not have gotten to that point in your link yet but so far it has just been a generalized "it's bad" which seems to be linked to the notion that sex itself is bad, especially casual sex.

 

 

In order to say porn has harmful effects I would need some objective measurement. For example a study showing that someone with proper sex-ed who watches porn runs a higher risk of getting an STD, or teen pregnancy, or maybe higher risk of mental issues, than someone who has not watched porn. Not just "sex is bad and porn encourages sex, so therefore porn is bad too".

 

Bold and underlined to add emphasis, because this is the core issue I have with the link you posted earlier.

 

 

50 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The biggest problem here is that the science (the actual research) points to a reality that no one wants to be real. Sorry, but when all the best research of the day says no you have two choices, bury your head in the sand or get a phD prove it wrong with more research of your own.

Got any links?

I am not trying to argue that the research is wrong. What I am saying is that I am on the fence and the research you have posted so far has not proven the point you're trying to make.

[matrix07012]

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

This is not a filter though, you cannot just extend it to other things, they would have to draw up an amendment to give themselves authority to include new definitions like hip hop so said website owners have to apply the new porn pass.  That can't just happen,  and again if they do try to add to it, then you have question the whole government, not just the party in power. and that means you have bigger problems and you were never in control of anyway.

Does the bill specifically state it is only for porn? Or is it any age check? What happened with the ISP level porn filter was that more and more things got classified as needing to be blocked. Like I said, it started off with porn but now it also includes drug related sites, gambling, dating, and many more things.

 

Actually, here is an excerpt from the bill:

Quote

The steps that may be specified or arrangements that may be put in place under subsection (2)(c) include steps or arrangements that will or may also have the effect of preventing persons in the United Kingdom from being able to access material other than the offending material using the service provided by the internet service provider.

So no, they would not have to change the bill to block other material. The bill gives them the power to block "other material" as well, and since it is not specified what "other material" is in the bill, it legally speaking means anything.

 

What you're describing as "can't happen" is in fact what the bill says. And yes, I am questioning the whole government. This is the same government that wrote extremely intrusive spying bills which explicitly exempted themselves from it because they found it to be too intrusive. Yes, they wrote a bill and then also wrote that it did not apply to themselves.

 

It's also the same government that has harbored pedophile rings for decades (rather not look up sources for this on my work computer, but remind me again and I'll do it when I'm at home).

 

I do not give the UK government any benefit of the doubt at all. They have expended all the trust I am willing to give them. 

 

I think you should start questioning them too.

 

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

Again, if you want to argue what is infringing and what isn't then you can take it all the way to every law infringes.   That is a nonsense argument. The law that prevents me from pissing in the street infringes my personal freedom to spread disease.

Well, yes. All laws are taking away some freedom from people, but generally there is a strong argument that what we gain is worth more than the freedom we lose. In this case however, I have not seen any good argument for this having any kind of positive benefit to society, and I can see a big negative effect.

 

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

That's just an illogical step away from common sense.   This is nothing more than a way to help prevent minors from accessing porn without preventing everyone else from it too.

OK so you do draw the line somewhere. Having the default as blocking porn, and requiring ID verification to watch it is fine, but requiring ID verification for swearing is over the line.

See? We do need to draw the line somewhere. What the UK government is doing right now is slowly moving the line one millimeter at a time.

 

 

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

I know what it means, you think it applies here but your fear is that people won;t realise they are slowly losing their freedom. That is a crap argument.  If you have a line that you don't want governments to cross and you can see that clearly what makes you think no one else does?  I have a line I won;t let my government cross, just because it is further back than yours doesn't mean I don't see it coming or won't put my foot down when necessary.

Well you seem to be cheering about UK citizens losing some freedom while giving their government a huge amount of power over them so no, I do not trust people to realize what they are losing. Have you seen how many things the UK has banned in recent years? They are strongly cracking down on sex in general. The very same bill this age verification system is part of also includes banning "non-conventional sex acts".

If this bill passes, then there is a very high risk that things such as female ejaculation will be completely banned from being viewed in the UK. That goes for everyone by the way, porn-pass or not.

 

The UK government wants to control what fetishes people are allowed to have, which is insane.

 

How many people do you think knows about this? Did you do that? A lot of bills include hidden parts and cryptic language for the sole reason of keeping people in the dark.

 

 

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

and? are you saying something about the people or the government?

Both.

It's a sign that the UK government is using the boiling frog tactics, and that people are not making any major resistance. However, if they had introduced the current Internet censorship right from the start I am sure far more people had been protesting.

 

 

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

Why, what if people like some of the smaller first steps but not some to of the changes at the end?  You can't decide if something is bad based on assumptions about things that haven't happened.

Well first of all, I am not making assumptions here. I just read the bill and looked at what power the government would get. I don't want them to have that power so I am against it. But you can absolutely decide if something is bad based on assumptions which haven't happened yet. We do that all the time.

Is it bad to be shot? I haven't been shot yet but I assume it is bad, so I try to avoid it. Is giving a government known for abusing their powers every chance they get even more power a bad idea? Probably, so I would rather not give it to them. 

 

I mean, what would you say if I proposed Sharia laws? By your logic, you can't be against it because we don't have it in the UK yet. Maybe it would work great, so let's give it a try! Or maybe we should make the reasonable assumption that it is a horrible idea and we should stay away from it.

 

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

Well, that's just nihilist approach and there is no debating that.

 

Then start your own party or just  vote for the person you agree with most.  that's life, that's how communal survival works, get used to it because there isn't a better system on offer.

No it's not. I am not saying we should give up. What I am saying is that people need to protest or at the very least make their opinions heard. It is not enough to just say "just vote for someone else" because they will do terrible things too.

 

What people need to do is make their voices heard that politicians can't get away with abusing their powers. Hell, if all you do is vote against them then they won't even know why they don't get votes. It is extremely important that you make your opinion heard regarding specific issues, rather than just stay quiet and abandon a party you might agree with in 90% of all cases.

 

I mean, let's just pretend like I am going to vote for May in the next election (I am not British so I can't). Imagine if I agreed with her in 90% of all questions and decisions she makes. However, I strongly disagree with her regarding this.

What you propose is that I keep quiet and:
1) Vote for her because I agree with her on 90% of everything, but this also means that in her mind I agree with her decision regarding porn passes.

2) I ignore all the 90% of other questions and don't vote for her, because I feel so strongly about this particular issue. May will never know this was the question which was the dealbreaker, and she might change her stance on some of the other 90% of questions I did agree with her on.

 

As you can clearly see, neither situation 1 nor situation 2 is favorable to me or democracy in general.

What I propose is weight politicians against each other and pick the one you agree with the most on the questions you find the most important. However, in doing so you must also voice your opinion on the questions where you have different views, so that the politicians knows which ones of their actions are not accepted by the public. This not only informs the politicians in power what people believe is wrong or wrong on a particular subject but it also informs their political oppositions so that they can appeal to that crowd in the next election.

 

Keeping criticism to yourself is never the answer. What you're advocating for is a very big threat to democracy. Democracy does not work if the politicians don't know what the people want.

[GoldenLag]

14 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Democracy does not work if the politicians don't know what the people want

or they get lobbied to pieces or is accidentally a huge shareholder in a massive company that accidentally got benefits from a law change

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, asus killer said:

ok, if you assure me that something like this (not necessarily like this, but you get my point, a comprehensive approach to the problem) then i can understand it. But i seriously doubt it, they wont even be able to enforce the law in piratical terms let alone do some more time and money consuming measures.

 

Probably more along the lines of ... someone made a law in a piece of paper and they can all sleep safer at night, problem solved. "Kids don't see pron we made a law."

I don't know how they intend enforcing it.  Fines for website not adhering to the rules is the only thing suggested.

10 hours ago, LAwLz said:

OK, got any good studies on ongoing exposure?

I assume this law is intended (if the politicians are to be believed) to combat both accidental and ongoing.

You are laboring on the assumptioo0n that one excludes the other.  Deciding that accidental exposure is a thing without evidence doesn't change the existence of ongoing exposure having effects.   Accidental or short term exposure is a moot condition.

 

10 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I see. Sorry but I might have missed that part of your post or not figured out that they were related.

If the benefits/drawbacks of watching porn starts becoming blurry at the age of 12 and forward then I think we should question our current age restriction of 18, rather than try and enforce it even harder.

Reducing the age from 18 to 16 would probably be a well supported move, however that still doesn't address the ease with which minors can get access. 

 

10 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Right now it seems like the UK government is working really hard to enforce something which may be needlessly restrictive and which is currently very broken/ignored.

That, I am afraid, is how nearly all governments deal with nearly all situations.   Some where under the cluster fuck of policy ideals and suggestions is a nugget of reality that needs to be addressed, the rest is just debated endlessly because society today's feels everyone must have everything.  

 

10 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Doesn't matter if it's a meta analysis or not.

Yes it does, the only flaw in a meta analysis (that is properly referenced and transparent as this), is the draw size, given the main study drew from every published article in English over 20 years it will be one of the most accurate you will find.

 

10 hours ago, LAwLz said:

 

If it says that most studies found negative effects, but those negatives effects are things which are negative because of old-fashioned moral values (such as casual sex) then it's just garbage in, garbage out from the analysis.

The studies they reviewed are not based on opinions, they are purely observation of facts.    How you interpret what that means does not change their validity as data.  If the effects of watching porn is that you are more likely to have more sexual encounters in reality then why is that an "old fashioned moral value"?   It has no grounds in morals or anything, it is a direct observation of the data. 

 

10 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Without mentioning what the "negative effects" the research found we can't actually judge if there were real negative effects, or just "negative" in the sense that they do not align with the more traditional views of sex (mostly based on religion).

 

You mean becasue it is a meta study and you have to go back to the reference research articles to get the information,  you are happy to dismiss the entire thing? Science doesn't change just because you don't understand how to interpret data.

 

10 hours ago, LAwLz said:

The ideas that sex is immoral and should be prohibited are mostly based on religious ideas and old-fashioned moral values which has been carried over into modern day society. If a research paper defines having casual sex as negative then it is not based on science and research, it's based on that author's bias which most likely steps from the aforementioned sources.

It's not a coincident that countries with different religious cultures often differ when it comes to their views of sex, if you also take into consideration the influence western society have had on the "native culture".

Maybe you didn't read it as thoroughly as you claim you did, this excerpt is in direct reference to multiple partners:

 

Quote

 

Research into these practices reveal sexual morality bias; that is, it is taken as self-evident that such attitudes and practices are negative without consideration of the actual health and wellbeing outcomes of these practices. That is, they may be culturally undesirable but they are not inherently riskier than other sexual practices. This issue is discussed in detail below.

 

 

 

It addresses everything,  Like all good science the devil is in the detail and they have gone to great lengths to not be religiously or culturally driven as you claim.

 

10 hours ago, LAwLz said:

 

I have years of experience when it comes to masturbation. You could call me a "masterdebater".

 

Anyway, I thought I asked for the core issues surrounding minors and exposure to porn but so far I have only gotten a generalized "it's bad" which seems to be based on subjective opinions regarding things such as casual sex.

No you have gotten a detailed article that goes into quite some depth and considers a wealth of research dating back to 1995.  You see opinions becasue you don;t want to see what's there. 

 

10 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I have absolutely no problem with casual sex, definitely not when it comes to myself but I don't have an issue with younger people having it either, as long as they are aware of how to do it properly (which is why I think sex-ed is extremely important). If two 15 year olds want to screw then I say let them. It's better to inform them how to do it properly rather than try to keep them in the dark about sex and hope that they don't start experimenting by themselves (which they will).

I don't know anyone is arguing against that.  The average age of sexual activity starts around 13 (surprisingly around the same time people starting looking for partners and puberty kicks in etc). 

 

10 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I want something which actually say what "bad effects" occur. I might not have gotten to that point in your link yet but so far it has just been a generalized "it's bad" which seems to be linked to the notion that sex itself is bad, especially casual sex.

 

 

In order to say porn has harmful effects I would need some objective measurement. For example a study showing that someone with proper sex-ed who watches porn runs a higher risk of getting an STD, or teen pregnancy, or maybe higher risk of mental issues, than someone who has not watched porn. Not just "sex is bad and porn encourages sex, so therefore porn is bad too".

 

Bold and underlined to add emphasis, because this is the core issue I have with the link you posted earlier.

You want something that supports your ideals.  If you read the whole thing and even look up all the articles they cite you will see just how expansive the research is.  There is no conspiracy here, it gets the same level of unbiased research that any other science research gets. Trying to claim these studies are all biased in some way is like trying to argue that CERN are ignoring half the data from the LHC or that half the climate change science is founded on preconceived notions of what constitutes  climate data.

 

10 hours ago, LAwLz said:

 

Got any links?

I am not trying to argue that the research is wrong. What I am saying is that I am on the fence and the research you have posted so far has not proven the point you're trying to make.

Then follow the references and start reading the articles they got their info from.   I literally cannot impart a decades worth of reading and working in several posts and I highly doubt you have the time to read all the articles cited.  But they are there and well worth it if you can. 

 

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Does the bill specifically state it is only for porn? Or is it any age check? What happened with the ISP level porn filter was that more and more things got classified as needing to be blocked. Like I said, it started off with porn but now it also includes drug related sites, gambling, dating, and many more things.

porn pass isn't a bill, it is a suggested process for age verification. It is being looked at but the industry and the department that overseas content classification.   So far it has only been suggest for porn,  I can't see why it wouldn't also work for gambling and drugs.  However, The bill that was passed last year is different. The bill from last year specifically defines everything as being of a pornographic nature,  all the definitions reference there needing to be a reasonable assumption the video was made for pornographic intent. 

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Actually, here is an excerpt from the bill:

So no, they would not have to change the bill to block other material. The bill gives them the power to block "other material" as well, and since it is not specified what "other material" is in the bill, it legally speaking means anything.

The other material is specified:

 

From the Bill:

Quote

 

b)material that was included in a video work to which paragraph (a) applies, if it is reasonable to assume from its nature that its inclusion was among the reasons why the certificate was an R18 certificate;

(c)any other material if it is reasonable to assume from its nature that any classification certificate issued in respect of a video work including it would be an R18 certificate;

(d)a video work in respect of which the video works authority has issued an 18 certificate, and that it is reasonable to assume from its nature was produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal;

(e)material that was included in a video work to which paragraph (d) applies, if it is reasonable to assume from the nature of the material—

(i)that it was produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal, and

(ii)that its inclusion was among the reasons why the certificate was an 18 certificate;

(f)any other material if it is reasonable to assume from its nature—

(i)that it was produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal, and

(ii)that any classification certificate issued in respect of a video work including it would be an 18 certificate;

(g)a video work that the video works authority has determined not to be suitable for a classification certificate to be issued in respect of it, if—

(i)it includes material (other than extreme pornographic material) that it is reasonable to assume from its nature was produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal, and

(ii)it is reasonable to assume from the nature of that material that its inclusion was among the reasons why the video works authority made that determination;

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

What you're describing as "can't happen" is in fact what the bill says. And yes, I am questioning the whole government. This is the same government that wrote extremely intrusive spying bills which explicitly exempted themselves from it because they found it to be too intrusive. Yes, they wrote a bill and then also wrote that it did not apply to themselves.

Actually read the bill, 

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

It's also the same government that has harbored pedophile rings for decades (rather not look up sources for this on my work computer, but remind me again and I'll do it when I'm at home).

 

Well that's a good reason to abolish VAT on vegetables.

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I do not give the UK government any benefit of the doubt at all. They have expended all the trust I am willing to give them. 

fine

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I think you should start questioning them too.

 

I always question everything on it's own merits.  Just because I won't assume some sort of future abuse of laws that A. happen to everything and B. happen all the time doesn't mean I don't question.

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Well, yes. All laws are taking away some freedom from people, but generally there is a strong argument that what we gain is worth more than the freedom we lose. In this case however, I have not seen any good argument for this having any kind of positive benefit to society, and I can see a big negative effect.

 

That's because you are spending more time trying to find ways to dismiss the science rather than actually read and understand it.

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

OK so you do draw the line somewhere. Having the default as blocking porn, and requiring ID verification to watch it is fine, but requiring ID verification for swearing is over the line.

See? We do need to draw the line somewhere. What the UK government is doing right now is slowly moving the line one millimeter at a time.

Lets use the same argument for drivers licenses,  at the moment the requirement is you are 18 and not a complete vegetable.  What if we move the line to those who only have an IQ above 90?  there is a good argument for it.  What about if they move the line to those who earn a certain amount?  there is another line, what about if we only give it to white people?  Some lines are just stupid and can't be justified while others have a reasonable amount of evidence to support their legitimacy.  Same in this case.  Swearing is just a line you have made up, if it had evidence to sup[port it it would be considered.  But it doesn't, in fact quite the opposite, swearing is found to be beneficial for some reason.  

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

 

Well you seem to be cheering about UK citizens losing some freedom while giving their government a huge amount of power over them so no,

If you call having to get a onetime code from the newsagent when you pickup your paper loosing a freedom then you have some serious issues that go well beyond reason.  We have established their is a problem with online porn and minors, this doesn't actually  prevent legitimate porn viewing, it's just a measure to curb minors gaining access.

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

 

I do not trust people to realize what they are losing.

There in lies the problem, you think you are the only one who thinks.  This is called the third person effect, you believe there is a detrimental impact on society that only you can see.  

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Have you seen how many things the UK has banned in recent years? They are strongly cracking down on sex in general. The very same bill this age verification system is part of also includes banning "non-conventional sex acts".

Yep, that's the same bill.

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

If this bill passes, then there is a very high risk that things such as female ejaculation will be completely banned from being viewed in the UK. That goes for everyone by the way, porn-pass or not.

No there's not, because that bill stipulates if it passes classification for release on DVD it can be shown on the internet.  The bill simply aligns the classification to apply to the internet as they do every other media.   What you have here is a problem with classification and censorship.  If the people in the UK don't want censorship of that nature then they lobby and vote out.  That's it.  Complaining about something that doesn't actually effect that (talking about this porn pass idea) will change that.

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

The UK government wants to control what fetishes people are allowed to have, which is insane.

Actually they want to control everything,  because that is what people vote them in for, however once you view any government as being untouchable then you have lost democracy or you have lost touch with the rest of your society.

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

How many people do you think knows about this? Did you do that? A lot of bills include hidden parts and cryptic language for the sole reason of keeping people in the dark.

 

enough, you'd be surprised how many people follow this and keep a close eye on it, and you'd be surprised how many regulations there are in laws of all countries that don't get abused becasue they are their to cover a loophole.  

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

 

Both.

It's a sign that the UK government is using the boiling frog tactics, and that people are not making any major resistance. However, if they had introduced the current Internet censorship right from the start I am sure far more people had been protesting.

 

third person effect again.

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

 

Well first of all, I am not making assumptions here. I just read the bill and looked at what power the government would get. I don't want them to have that power so I am against it. But you can absolutely decide if something is bad based on assumptions which haven't happened yet. We do that all the time.

I assume you apply that logic to all government regulation then?  You are opposed to all government regulation becasue it can be abused in the future?

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Is it bad to be shot? I haven't been shot yet but I assume it is bad, so I try to avoid it. Is giving a government known for abusing their powers every chance they get even more power a bad idea? Probably, so I would rather not give it to them. 

 

I mean, what would you say if I proposed Sharia laws? By your logic, you can't be against it because we don't have it in the UK yet. Maybe it would work great, so let's give it a try! Or maybe we should make the reasonable assumption that it is a horrible idea and we should stay away from it.

How does that even relate to what I said?  you are working on the assumption that cumulative changes over time can't be seen or stopped, therefore you think you have to stop everything in case it gets worse.  That is a slippery slope argument,

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

No it's not. I am not saying we should give up. What I am saying is that people need to protest or at the very least make their opinions heard. It is not enough to just say "just vote for someone else" because they will do terrible things too.

Then don't argue the government is evil and can;t be changed.  After all if you can't vote them out or lobby them to change why protest?

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

What people need to do is make their voices heard that politicians can't get away with abusing their powers. Hell, if all you do is vote against them then they won't even know why they don't get votes. It is extremely important that you make your opinion heard regarding specific issues, rather than just stay quiet and abandon a party you might agree with in 90% of all cases.

Do you think people are just quietly taking this?  It has been reported in several papers and voters get the chance to vote out more often than not. Again this is the third person effect.  You think other people are effected by communication from the media/government more than you, you think you can see the real issue here but no one else can.   Sorry to burst your bubble but in general people are just as informed as you.  People are just as capable of looking at a proposed law and deciding if they like it or not.

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I mean, let's just pretend like I am going to vote for May in the next election (I am not British so I can't). Imagine if I agreed with her in 90% of all questions and decisions she makes. However, I strongly disagree with her regarding this.

What you propose is that I keep quiet and:
1) Vote for her because I agree with her on 90% of everything, but this also means that in her mind I agree with her decision regarding porn passes.

2) I ignore all the 90% of other questions and don't vote for her, because I feel so strongly about this particular issue. May will never know this was the question which was the dealbreaker, and she might change her stance on some of the other 90% of questions I did agree with her on.

What a horrible world you live in.  You can't change that facet of society, the alternative to have a dictatorship or communist society, Both of which have proven to be less effective than a democracy,  where you don't always get what you want but society moves forward anyway.

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

As you can clearly see, neither situation 1 nor situation 2 is favorable to me or democracy in general.

What I propose is weight politicians against each other and pick the one you agree with the most on the questions you find the most important.

That's how most democracies work.  That's how the two party preferred system works, you don;t vote for a PM or party, you have a choice of Several individuals some of whom represent parties.

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

However, in doing so you must also voice your opinion on the questions where you have different views, so that the politicians knows which ones of their actions are not accepted by the public. This not only informs the politicians in power what people believe is wrong or wrong on a particular subject but it also informs their political oppositions so that they can appeal to that crowd in the next election.

 

Keeping criticism to yourself is never the answer. What you're advocating for is a very big threat to democracy. Democracy does not work if the politicians don't know what the people want.

Governments do know what the people want, again you are operating on the assumption that people don't lobby and protest and send in nasty letters.   They do, that's how come we have discriminatory employment law for minorities who make no difference.  The problem here is it appears you are in the minority.  Not a nice position I'll grant, but it doesn't mean everyone else is naive or ignorant about  what's happening. 

[ARikozuM]

Next thing you know the census will include percentage of citizens based on fetish. 

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

Next thing you know the census will include percentage of citizens based on fetish. 

I hope so, that would help take the guess work out of deciding if I am a freak or normal. 

[Kamjam21xx]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I hope so, that would help take the guess work out of deciding if I am a freak or normal. 

Go to bed ya bloody wanker.

[GOTSpectrum]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

I hope so, that would help take the guess work out of deciding if I am a freak or normal. 

This gave me a gooood laugh! I mean the whole thread did but this was the cream on the cake(or anywhere else you like your cream for that matter) 

 

P.S. I like the ideas behind it as a youthworker but I fear this may be setting an unhealthy precedent without public consultation. I mean its better than the original plan that was to have a database of traceable records, butt I think it may need more work. 

[ARikozuM]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

I hope so, that would help take the guess work out of deciding if I am a freak or normal. 

Republican or Democrat shall be replaced by Resubmissive and Domocrat.

 

I don’t think I have to explain this one.

Spoiler

?

 

[JoostinOnline]

I can see these being purchased and resold online.  I'd pay extra to get a black market pass, rather than go to a store and buy one in person.  It's fucking humiliating.

[mr moose]

32 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

I can see these being purchased and resold online.  I'd pay extra to get a black market pass, rather than go to a store and buy one in person.  It's fucking humiliating.

you shouldn't have to pay for it at all.    Also admitting you watch R18 content shouldn't be humiliating, we're in the 21st century.

[JoostinOnline]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Also admitting you watch R18 content shouldn't be humiliating, we're in the 21st century.

It doesn't matter how you think it should be, that's not the way it is.  Nobody should feel embarrassed that they have gas either, but we try to hide it.  It's human nature.

 

I disagree with your belief that some of the arguments against this are slippery slope fallacies.  We're recognizing the existing slope, not saying that it has a potential to become one.  We've been sliding down the slope for a couple decades now.  Ever time the government takes more control of the Internet, they're not only gaining power over information, they're setting up precedent for further control.  I'm sorry that you're having problems with filtering what your kids can see (I really hope that doesn't come across as insulting, it's late and I can't think of a way to say it that doesn't sound offensive), but that's not justification to control an entire country.

 

On a semi-related note, I remember a WAN Show episode where Linus suggested that porn will eventually come full circle.  As parents become more aware of how to block Internet traffic and how VPN's work, teenagers will eventually return back to getting physical copies.

[mr moose]

29 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

It doesn't matter how you think it should be, that's not the way it is.  Nobody should feel embarrassed that they have gas either, but we try to hide it.  It's human nature.

What, you think it's ok to judge people based on whether they consume R18 content or that said content is negatively reflective of the watcher?  Because that s the only way one would be embarrassed by it.

 

29 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

I disagree with your belief that some of the arguments against this are slippery slope fallacies.  We're recognizing the existing slope, not saying that it has a potential to become one.  We've been sliding down the slope for a couple decades now.  Ever time the government takes more control of the Internet, they're not only gaining power over information, they're setting up precedent for further control.  I'm sorry that you're having problems with filtering what your kids can see (I really hope that doesn't come across as insulting, it's late and I can't think of a way to say it that doesn't sound offensive), but that's not justification to control an entire country.

 

On a semi-related note, I remember a WAN Show episode where Linus suggested that porn will eventually come full circle.  As parents become more aware of how to block Internet traffic and how VPN's work, teenagers will eventually return back to getting physical copies.

Actually we've been sliding down that perceived slope for centuries, the things is it doesn't go anywhere.  

 

Someone asked for examples of slippery slope arguments from history on quora,  Whether you like the ideal people have or not, it's plain to see that they have been observed and used to mostly nil consequence for a very long time.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-historical-examples-of-slippery-slopes-that-actually-slipped

[JoostinOnline]

44 minutes ago, mr moose said:

What, you think it's ok to judge people based on whether they consume R18 content or that said content is negatively reflective of the watcher?  Because that s the only way one would be embarrassed by it.

It seems you didn't bother to read the part you responded to.

 

47 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Someone asked for examples of slippery slope arguments from history on quora,  Whether you like the ideal people have or not, it's plain to see that they have been observed and used to mostly nil consequence for a very long time.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-historical-examples-of-slippery-slopes-that-actually-slipped

Quora is hardly a reliable source, and it doesn't really prove your point anyway.

 

What you teach your kids is your business (in this case, that it's wrong for them to watch porn, but that it's also not something to feel embarrassed about), but it's not okay for you to try to control what everyone else does. You are being very aggressive about this. I'm sure plenty of parents don't mind their kids watching porn, but you're trying to control how they raise their kids too.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

It seems you didn't bother to read the part you responded to.

Yes I did, you said it was normal to feel embarrassed about people knowing you watch porn.   The only way you can be embarrassed about something is if it not considered normal I.E you are being judged for it.   Who should be judged for watching porn?

 

2 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

Quora is hardly a reliable source, and it doesn't really prove your point anyway.

 

What you teach your kids is your business (in this case, that it's wrong for them to watch porn, but that it's also not something to feel embarrassed about), but it's not okay for you to try to control what everyone else does. You are being very aggressive about this. I'm sure plenty of parents don't mind their kids watching porn, but you're trying to control how they raise their kids too.

 

Did you not claim there is an observable slippery slope in action? Did you not also claim that we have been sliding down it for decades?  Because what I pointed you to was a whole array of people who observed slippery slope arguments throughout history.  Whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant,  the point is there are no new arguments here. We are no more on a slippery slope now than we were a century ago.   Remember they used the same slippery slope arguments to stop black people getting the vote, the same slippery slope argument was used to try and stop gay marriage, the same slippery slope argument was used in 19th century England to prevent the poor getting the vote.   There is indeed a lot of slippery slope arguments,  not just now but throughout history and all of them did not lead to complete destruction and dismay.  

 

What you observe as a slippery slope is merely displeasure with current events and not evidence that they will lead to worse things.

[JoostinOnline]

11 hours ago, mr moose said:

Yes I did, you said it was normal to feel embarrassed about people knowing you watch porn.   The only way you can be embarrassed about something is if it not considered normal I.E you are being judged for it.   Who should be judged for watching porn?

I said it's normal to feel embarrassed about farting, even though everyone does it.

 

As for the rest, you're trying to argue against something entirely different. I'm done debating with you, you're just angry and aggressive.

[IceCold008]

I live in the UK and i can tell you everything you can bypass if you no what your doing. 

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

I said it's normal to feel embarrassed about farting, even though everyone does it.

 

As for the rest, you're trying to argue against something entirely different. I'm done debating with you, you're just angry and aggressive.

 

It's not an argument, it's a discussion, I'm sorry you feel that way.

[LAwLz]

On 5/19/2018 at 10:39 AM, mr moose said:

Yes I did, you said it was normal to feel embarrassed about people knowing you watch porn.   The only way you can be embarrassed about something is if it not considered normal I.E you are being judged for it.   Who should be judged for watching porn?

Sometimes I wonder if you actually believe the bullshit you type.

 

Yes, there are a lot of things which are perfectly normal to do, yet people feel ashamed/embarrassed about it. Almost everything related to sex falls into this category because it is a very taboo subject in western culture.

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Sometimes I wonder if you actually believe the bullshit you type.

 

Yes, there are a lot of things which are perfectly normal to do, yet people feel ashamed/embarrassed about it. Almost everything related to sex falls into this category because it is a very taboo subject in western culture.

 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Sometimes I wonder if you actually believe the bullshit you type.

 

Yes, there are a lot of things which are perfectly normal to do, yet people feel ashamed/embarrassed about it. Almost everything related to sex falls into this category because it is a very taboo subject in western culture.

 

Please, You think I just make shit up:

 

Quote

The experience of embarrassment alerts you to your failure to behave according to certain social standards, which threaten the beliefs you hold concerning how others evaluate you as well as the ways in which you evaluate yourself. 

From:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/intense-emotions-and-strong-feelings/201112/embarrassment

 

 

In the context of this discussion, the concept that others knowing you watch porn making you embarrassed stems from a self awareness of judgment.   If the social construct of porn being taboo or unhealthy was not there then neither would be the stigma which causes one to feel embarrassed talking about it. 

 

It is fair to say that most people don't judge themselves harshly when the social standards don't,  And we have a very good grounding claiming that current social standards view porn consumption in a rather dim light.    

 

It is reasonable to conclude that if porn watching was considered socially acceptable and a normal practice without judgment from society then people would not feel embarrassed admitting they watch it.

 

 

EDIT: and just in addendum to this, because people are raising "other things" that are embarrassing.  The same rules apply to them to.  The difference between farting in front of others and people knowing you watch porn in private is that watching porn in private is an act insulated from other people, farting in from of them is not.  does anyone judge you for farting in private?  I highly doubt it, and if they do they are not the sort of person likely to draw an embarrassed emotion from you, you are more likely to hold them with contempt rather than be embarrassed.