|
Banning internet porn isn't going to keep kids from seeing it. I was a kid before the internet provided pictures. I had managed to see naked pictures, porn, violent images. We were resourceful. I also turned out fine.
I think there is much more offensive sh*t on legal, public tv (horrible role models) than moving images of 2 people doing it.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Banning internet porn isn't going to keep kids from seeing it.
No one ever claimed it would, that I know of.
Quote: I was a kid before the internet provided pictures.
So then clearly you understand how much easier it is to get now.
Quote: I also turned out fine.
The jury is still out. 
Quote: I think there is much more offensive sh*t on legal, public tv (horrible role models) than moving images of 2 people doing it.
And I respect your opinion.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
ryanb31 wrote: No one ever claimed it would, that I know of.
So you are claiming that Iceland it not specifically trying to do that?
It is already specifically banned in print. And they will attempt to ban it from the internet.
Where exactly are your proposing that the politicians that are pushing this expect that it will now come from?
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: So you are claiming that Iceland it not specifically trying to do that?
First of all, read what I said instead of looking for a fight. I said "No one ever claimed it would, that I know of." No, I don't believe Iceland thinks that because of banning it on the internet, no child will ever see any. Drugs are illegal but clearly people still get them. I doubt anyone is naive enough to think that if it is banned on the internet, no child will ever see it. Use common sense.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
ryanb31 wrote: First of all, read what I said instead of looking for a fight. I said "No one
ever claimed it would, that I know of."
Ok then, so you know, the following is from the article.
"Ogmundur Jonasson, Iceland's interior minister, is drafting legislation to stop the access of online pornographic images and videos by young people through computers, games consoles and smartphones. "
|
|
|
|
|
You said "Banning internet porn isn't going to keep kids from seeing it." And then you quote "is drafting legislation to stop the access of online pornographic images and videos by young people..."
I would love to understand why you can't reconcile these two. Just because you are banning it from the internet does not mean kids won't be able to see it. Marijuana is illegal in many places, but does that stop every single kid from getting to it? Of course not, and no one is gullible enough to believe that no kid will ever see porn again. Do you really believe they were saying that no kid would ever see porn again? Do you?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
ryanb31 wrote: Just because you are banning it from the internet does not mean kids won't be
able to see it
The point is that the politician believes that or at least is publicly expressing that.
|
|
|
|
|
So, you do believe that the politician thinks that no kid will ever see porn again if it is banned? That's your own opinion. The politician did not say that. And why would you think anyone would believe that? Are you more gullible than someone that would actually believe that?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
ryanb31 wrote: So, you do believe that the politician thinks that no kid will ever see porn
again if it is banned?
I have no knowledge about the politician except from the article.
ryanb31 wrote: That's your own opinion.
Presuming that you don't know the politician any presumptions on your part about what they really think/mean would be an opinion. The facts present in the article do suggest exactly that.
ryanb31 wrote: The politician did not say that.
Yes they did.
ryanb31 wrote: Are you more gullible than someone that would actually believe that?
The subthread has nothing to do with what I believe but rather the possibility that one person of many might believe.
|
|
|
|
|
ryanb31 wrote: Do you want to expose your children to violent or naked pictures on billboards?
The two are not the same.
And yes I would prefer that children were exposed to nudity because there are a vast number of problems that result from prudish attempts to suppress sex.
ryanb31 wrote: How about on cereal boxes?
Stupid nonsense.
ryanb31 wrote: ...that there are some civilized rules to prevent those things
Prevent what things exactly? Prevent nudity? So better that children and from that it follows that adults should be ashamed of their bodies all the time?
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: The two are not the same.
Why not?
Quote: And yes I would prefer that children were exposed to nudity
I pity any offspring you may ever have.
Quote: Stupid nonsense.
Why? Many years ago people said the same exact thing about public nudity or nudity in movies. But I agree, it likely would never happen but the point is the same. Why make it so easy?
Quote: Prevent what things exactly?
If you can't understand, sorry.
Quote: So better that children and from that it follows that adults should be ashamed of their bodies all the time?
That's ridiculous. You don't have to flaunt explicit images to prevent people from being ashamed. Do some research, porn actually causes more shame. You have it backwards.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
ryanb31 wrote: Why not?
If you don't understand that nudity and violence are not the same then I doubt that I can explain it to you.
ryanb31 wrote: I pity any offspring you may ever have.
I note your rationalization of your own viewpoint.
ryanb31 wrote: Why? ...But I agree, it likely would never happen
Because you agreed that in fact it would not happen.
ryanb31 wrote: If you can't understand, sorry.
Has nothing to do with my ability to understand. It has to do with your reference to "things" without actually explaining what "things" you were talking about.
ryanb31 wrote: You don't have to flaunt explicit images to prevent people from being ashamed
Wrong. And wrong.
First it has nothing to do with "flaunting" anything. If wasn't being flaunted.
Second by making it illegal it specifically does increase the shame because acts that would have normally never been consider illegal before now EXPLICITLY become illegal. For example if a married couple sends nude pictures of themselves via email they can now be charged with a crime.
ryanb31 wrote: Do some research, porn actually causes more shame
Nonsense. Attitudes cause shame nothing else.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: If you don't understand that nudity and violence are not the same then I doubt that I can explain it to you.
OK, so you are taking what I said out of context and just looking at the definition of nudity and violence. If you can't address the context then you are just trolling.
Quote: I note your rationalization of your own viewpoint.
Besides common sense, there are so many studies of the damaging effects of porn on young children, and even adults. Do some research and find out how many marriages suffer and even die due to porn.
Quote: Because you agreed that in fact it would not happen.
OK, further proof you are just a troll. I've been through this with you a million times before. And yes, I know that right now in your head you're thinking you should call me out on the "million" because it really hasn't been a million. Waste of time. Can't you bring something intelligent?
Quote: Has nothing to do with my ability to understand.
Actually, that IS the issue. If not, then you are a troll. I see no other option.
Quote: Second by making it illegal it specifically does increase the shame because acts that would have normally never been consider illegal before now EXPLICITLY become illegal.
So not true. You may feel that personally but you are wrong. Last year I read a book called, "Strong fathers, strong daughters." Now I doubt you really have a true interest in this but the author gives plenty of evidence for just how wrong you are thinking that way.
Quote: Attitudes cause shame nothing else.
So, that contradicts what you said about making it illegal. If it is the attitude that causes shame who cares if it is illegal?
Some day, I promise you, you will understand just how devastating porn is to a society. I feel very sorry for you that your innocence was damaged so young and now you believe the way you do. As a challenge, find any society that has been successful in the history of the world that did not value sex as something sacred and private.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
ryanb31 wrote: OK, so you are taking what I said out of context and just looking at the
definition of nudity and violence
Nope. You said and what I quoted was...
"Do you want to expose your children to violent or naked pictures on billboards"
And I responded exactly to that that the two are not the same. They are not. Neither in terms of pictures nor and in addition to on billboards.
ryanb31 wrote: there are so many studies of the damaging effects of porn on young children, and
even adults.
There are many studies that show that cow urine cures cancer. And both sets of studies have the same validity.
ryanb31 wrote: I've been through this with you a million times before
I said it was nonsense and you agreed it was nonsense. Nothing more needs to be said.
ryanb31 wrote: Now I doubt you really have a true interest in this but the author gives plenty
of evidence for just how wrong you are thinking that way.
Good luck with that.
ryanb31 wrote: If it is the attitude that causes shame who cares if it is illegal?
Because of course that impacts it. Unless of course you think that making it illegal has absolutely no impact on the way society perceives it?
ryanb31 wrote: I feel very sorry for you that your innocence was damaged so young and now you
believe the way you do. As a challenge, find any society that has been
successful in the history of the world that did not value sex as something
sacred and private
Rationalization and denigration is always the best way to end a discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
Now what are they gonna do up there.......
Back to the sheep I suppose.
|
|
|
|
|
There will be a special police unit that will watch porn full time in order to identify the web sites to be blocked.
Offenders will be sentenced to community service in the nearby gay bar.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Dalek Dave wrote: See Here[^]
From that...
"We have to be able to discuss a ban on violent pornography, which we all agree has a very harmful effects on young people and can have a clear link to incidences of violent crime,"
Nonsense. And it completely ignores the fact that most people do not like and do not watch "violent" pornography.
"We have so many experts from educationalists to the police and those who work with children behind this,"
So publicizing that many people are ignorant is a good thing?
"The proposed control over online access, that mirrors attempt in dictatorships such as China to restrict the internet, is justified as a defence{sic] of vulnerable women and children. "
China rationalizes their censorship as well.
"Iceland is taking a very progressive approach that no other democratic country has tried,"
Rationalizing it with a feel good word that means nothing.
"from the perspective of the harm it does to the women who appear in it and as a violation of their civil rights."
And obviously because the adults that appear in it are too stupid to make decisions for themselves so the government must step in to do their thinking for them.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: So publicizing that many people are ignorant is a good thing?
Ignorant in which way? Explain.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
ryanb31 wrote: Ignorant in which way? Explain.
They made specific claims about the impact.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: They made specific claims about the impact
Which claims are wrong? Do you have any evidence of such?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
