Default inappropriate contentography block, and Rape inappropriate content Ban

[TheDag]

When I went to university, for about a year there was a (horrible) street musician on the only sensible pedestrian route from the train station to the campus. Every single day, this guy decided he had the right to annoy me and hundreds/thousands of others with his tunes and his begging, ruining fine mornings with mangled renditions of whatever song could coax a few cents from the dumb minority who appreciate accordion music at 8 AM. And that just involved horrible music. Someone telling me that I'm going to hell every morning is much more than "just being an unwanted listener for a few seconds". It ruins the mood, it ruins the atmosphere, it makes the society a crappy place to live for everyone except the one guy who really feels a need to shout at strangers.

I really like the dutch word for society, "samenleving", or literally something like "together-living". It indicates that the idea is to live together, that the thing only works if you keep each other's needs, wants, and desires in mind. Actions that are only beneficial to one person and detrimental to everyone else (and no, some madman raving on the streets is no way beneficial towards establishing "thoughtful dialogue" or anything of that kind..) are not beneficial to the society, and thus don't belong in public.

Funny how you make no comments about athiests but only a couple of religions. I find it offensive when athiests claim I am stupid ignorant uneducated bigot. Not only are they wrong and have no idea what my views or practice are that is offensive. So best just ban any kind of talking on the street. I would say no topic should be banned but do agree that if the audience needs to be there or need to line up to frequent a business there then it is not reasonable to allow as they don't have the choice. It is also unfair on businesses if we say go elsewhere so you don't hear it as I could easily choose spots where I know people line up to get into and start preaching there.

 

[TheDag]

I think this is a great idea. I think all inappropriate content should be permanently blocked, deleted, and the owners and producers of inappropriate contentography prosecuted. That's how strongly I feel about inappropriate contentography.

I would like all inappropriate contentography to be non-existant as well however I can not support legislation forcing this because while I like what they censor today tomorrow they may try to censor my faith and then I will have no moral right to object because I happily supported banning whatever the majority don't like and Christianity is a minority where I am. I count regular church attendance not people who claim to be Christian.

 

[Skavau]

I think this is a great idea. I think all inappropriate content should be permanently blocked, deleted, and the owners and producers of inappropriate contentography prosecuted. That's how strongly I feel about inappropriate contentography.

So you're in favour of systematic persecution towards others for daring to enjoy things you do not like.

 

[CabVet]

I think this is a great idea. I think all inappropriate content should be permanently blocked, deleted, and the owners and producers of inappropriate contentography prosecuted. That's how strongly I feel about inappropriate contentography.

I know at least two places where that already happens, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Maybe you want to move there?

 

[morningstar2651]

I think this is a great idea. I think all inappropriate content should be permanently blocked, deleted, and the owners and producers of inappropriate contentography prosecuted. That's how strongly I feel about inappropriate contentography.

I'm going to go watch some inappropriate contentography right now, and there's nothing you can do to stop me.

 

[kittycat7]

As long as no one is actually raped during the making of rape inappropriate content ... who cares?? I don't think the government has any right to stop people from doing things that don't directly hurt others.

EDIT: Actually, I realized that's not true. I do think that inappropriate behavior with animals and things like that should be illegal. I don't want inappropriate content to be banned mainly because that would open the door for other forms of censorship.

 

[Lotuspetal_uk]

"Every household in the UK is to have inappropriate contentography blocked by their internet provider unless they choose to receive it, David Cameron has announced."

"In addition, the prime minister said possessing online inappropriate contentography depicting rape would become illegal in England and Wales - in line with Scotland."

BBC News - Online inappropriate contentography to be blocked by default, PM announces

Well I can safely say that I hate Cameron now, and I hate the Tory party. And I was so close to think Cameron was okay too.

I get why child inappropriate content would be banned, but rape inappropriate content isn't rape... it's acting. Does Cameron realise that legal films and tv shows depict murder? Does Cameron think murder is ok?

This is clearly a violation of freedom of expression. It doesn't harm anyone.

Cameron and anyone who votes for this are scum, and an absolute disgrace to a 'free country'.

A side note: Sucks to live with your parents if they have inappropriate content blocked. Again, an necessarily strong block on freedom of expression for young people. I understand wanting to keep it away from actual children though.

On the one hand this is yet another example of our civil liberties being ripped away.

But.....

OTOH there are unfortunately too many numpties who - through laziness/stupidity (delete as appropriate) - allow their children (children now not teens who know how to tweak proxy servers) to be exposed to inappropriate content and this does affect a child's normal development if exposed to inappropriate contentography too early. Thanks to them our nanny state government have jumped on this.

Also... maybe I read your post wrong...but how can rape inappropriate content be entertaining? Any portrayal of this act should be very disturbing. It is a portrayal of someone having something sacred violently taken from them. That sacred thing is not a possession to be violently ripped from them (like robberies etc) it is the person's self worth and we should never get to a point in society where it is an okay act to observe or do.

That comment just struck a nerve with me, especially given how women are guilty until proven innocent when as victims, they testify against rape.

 

[Lotuspetal_uk]

I would like all inappropriate contentography to be non-existant as well however I can not support legislation forcing this because while I like what they censor today tomorrow they may try to censor my faith and then I will have no moral right to object because I happily supported banning whatever the majority don't like and Christianity is a minority where I am. I count regular church attendance not people who claim to be Christian.

QFT!

This is the main and only objection I have against this legislation.

 

[Gadarene]

I'm going to go watch some inappropriate contentography right now, and there's nothing you can do to stop me.

Oh morningstar, you so principled, or maybe you were just gonna watch some anyway, hmmmmm?

 

[Gadarene]

Also... maybe I read your post wrong...but how can rape inappropriate content be entertaining? Any portrayal of this act should be very disturbing. It is a portrayal of someone having something sacred violently taken from them. That sacred thing is not a possession to be violently ripped from them (like robberies etc) it is the person's self worth and we should never get to a point in society where it is an okay act to observe or do.

It's a fantasy for some people, and they have every right to engage in it.

Rape fantasy is pretty common for women, moreso than for men iirc.

That comment just struck a nerve with me, especially given how women are guilty until proven innocent when as victims, they testify against rape.

Works both ways. Many men are guilty until proven innocent when accused of rape.

 

[Skavau]

OTOH there are unfortunately too many numpties who - through laziness/stupidity (delete as appropriate) - allow their children (children now not teens who know how to tweak proxy servers) to be exposed to inappropriate content and this does affect a child's normal development if exposed to inappropriate contentography too early. Thanks to them our nanny state government have jumped on this.

The filters planned by the government could still be bypassed by proxies.

Also... maybe I read your post wrong...but how can rape inappropriate content be entertaining? Any portrayal of this act should be very disturbing. It is a portrayal of someone having something sacred violently taken from them. That sacred thing is not a possession to be violently ripped from them (like robberies etc) it is the person's self worth and we should never get to a point in society where it is an okay act to observe or do.

It is a fetish for some people. We should not be in the business of criminalising minority fetishes because we find them distressing. That is not our business. So long as all involved in BDSM-esque things are consensual it is not yours or my business.

The government is creating stigma towards people who do have certain fetishes.

 

[Paradoxum]

On the one hand this is yet another example of our civil liberties being ripped away.

But.....

OTOH there are unfortunately too many numpties who - through laziness/stupidity (delete as appropriate) - allow their children (children now not teens who know how to tweak proxy servers) to be exposed to inappropriate content and this does affect a child's normal development if exposed to inappropriate contentography too early. Thanks to them our nanny state government have jumped on this.

Also... maybe I read your post wrong...but how can rape inappropriate content be entertaining? Any portrayal of this act should be very disturbing. It is a portrayal of someone having something sacred violently taken from them. That sacred thing is not a possession to be violently ripped from them (like robberies etc) it is the person's self worth and we should never get to a point in society where it is an okay act to observe or do.

I think there is a difference between the acting and the actual act. I equally find horror movies to be strange. It's weird to like to see people murdered, tortured, and psychologically scared. At the same time, people who watch horror movies still think murder is wrong.

Some people have different fantasies, and if it doesn't harm others, then I think that should be allowed.

That comment just struck a nerve with me, especially given how women are guilty until proven innocent when as victims, they testify against rape.

It is scary how easily a court could silence a victim from speaking out about their attacker. I just don't think we should be criminalising innocent people who harm no one.

 

[Imperiuz]

Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. - Matthew 23:24

This bible verse feels very suitable for describing the leader of the faux-conservatives in Britain. Cameron is a man who forced his party to accept homosexual "marriage", but now tries to win back social conservative voters by proposing a ban on a very minor and irrelevant issue that perhaps concerns around 0.01% of the populace.

Hunting down the few perverts who like that kind of sexual activities won't do anything to help restoring the nuclear family, fight sexual promiscuity or battle the cultural radical elite. Who cares about sado-masochism while teenagers get sexually promiscuous thanks to government-subsided condoms, the sanctity of marriage is being violated to non-existence and the LGBT-lobby is more powerful than ever?

PS. God bless the UK Independence Party!

 

[muslimsoldier4life]

Don't you mean North?

Nope. All inappropriate contentography sites are blocked in South Korea; if you can access the site, chances are you are gonna get a virus. Plus there are millions of cameras all over South Korea and someone is paid to watch that camera.

 

[TheDag]

Hunting down the few perverts who like that kind of sexual activities won't do anything to help restoring the nuclear family, fight sexual promiscuity or battle the cultural radical elite. Who cares about sado-masochism while teenagers get sexually promiscuous thanks to government-subsided condoms,

got any evidence for this claim? By evidence I mean a direct link that shows these teenagers would not have sex or try to if those condoms were not subsidised. Typically studies have shown those who suffer the most are those prevented from education. They are the ones who end up with problems. I can assure you condoms are frequently stolen from shops especially when not kept at the counter.

Also banning gay marriage would do absolutely nothing to restore the nuclear family. In any case there is no biblical instruction to force our beliefs on others. We are supposed to be a shining light. That means living by example. While it is a line from a song it is very true "The single greatest cause of athieism is Christians who acknowledge God with their lips but deny him with their lifestyle". Look at what Jesus did and people listened because they looked at him and the way he was and flocked to him. He didn't go out there behaving poorly and being greedy and unethical and then expect people to listen.

 

[Imperiuz]

got any evidence for this claim? By evidence I mean a direct link that shows these teenagers would not have sex or try to if those condoms were not subsidised. Typically studies have shown those who suffer the most are those prevented from education. They are the ones who end up with problems. I can assure you condoms are frequently stolen from shops especially when not kept at the counter.

Yeah. Even in far away Zambia they realized it: Condoms for schools row erupts - Daily Nation

Government subsidies to condoms goes directly to the diabolical lobbies that seeks to make more poeple having sex so that they can earn more money. The same lobbies that cause self destructive and suicidal behaviour thanks to young women feeling like lumps of meat thanks to their promiscuity. Luckily, most teens don't use condoms anyway since they are impractical and uncomfortable.

Also banning gay marriage would do absolutely nothing to restore the nuclear family. In any case there is no biblical instruction to force our beliefs on others.

You are partly correct in that gay marriage isn't the problem itself but a symptom of a bigger problem, that marriage has been redefined as a "formalization of love". Divorces are probably an even bigger contributor to this, and in any case, one can start thinking that marriage could perhaps be best scrapped as part of the law altogether.

However, marriage in legal terms is not a theological question, but an ideological one. David Cameron could be an atheist or deist or whatever, but if he is pro-gay marriage he isn't a conservative. He should go home and read his Edmund Burke one more time.

We are supposed to be a shining light. That means living by example. While it is a line from a song it is very true "The single greatest cause of athieism is Christians who acknowledge God with their lips but deny him with their lifestyle".

I now quite a few young people who have traditional values, who are social conservatives, nationalist etc. and interested in Jesus but who turn away when all they see are masochistic liberal Christians who lick the hands of those who continue to beat and humiliate them. I am quite ascertained that more of the stuff from 1968 is not what will lead people to Jesus when it's those ideals who have torn many of our countries apart.

Look at what Jesus did and people listened because they looked at him and the way he was and flocked to him. He didn't go out there behaving poorly and being greedy and unethical and then expect people to listen.

Remember, Jesus was a king, of a nation, who believed in tradition and order, defended private property and made laws on sexual morality even stricter. Yes, he helped the poor and the least among us, he supported social responsibility (and one could see him do the same to animals too), but those things do not fundamentally contradict each other.

 

[Creech]

Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. - Matthew 23:24

This bible verse feels very suitable for describing the leader of the faux-conservatives in Britain. Cameron is a man who forced his party to accept homosexual "marriage", but now tries to win back social conservative voters by proposing a ban on a very minor and irrelevant issue that perhaps concerns around 0.01% of the populace.

Hunting down the few perverts who like that kind of sexual activities won't do anything to help restoring the nuclear family, fight sexual promiscuity or battle the cultural radical elite. Who cares about sado-masochism while teenagers get sexually promiscuous thanks to government-subsided condoms, the sanctity of marriage is being violated to non-existence and the LGBT-lobby is more powerful than ever?

PS. God bless the UK Independence Party!

Agreed 100%!

 

[TerranceL]

Remember, Jesus was a king, of a nation,

Which nation?

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

This bible verse feels very suitable for describing the leader of the faux-conservatives in Britain. Cameron is a man who forced his party to accept homosexual "marriage", but now tries to win back social conservative voters by proposing a ban on a very minor and irrelevant issue that perhaps concerns around 0.01% of the populace.

He must really think they're stupid if thinks it's going to work.

 

[AceHero]

Hunting down the few perverts who like that kind of sexual activities won't do anything to help restoring the nuclear family, fight sexual promiscuity or battle the cultural radical elite. Who cares about sado-masochism while teenagers get sexually promiscuous thanks to government-subsided condoms, the sanctity of marriage is being violated to non-existence and the LGBT-lobby is more powerful than ever?

Gay people aren't inherently perverted. It may not be your preference (as it isn't for most people), but that doesn't mean what they do is perverted. If you care about perversion, perhaps it would be wise to focus your efforts instead on fighting incest, pedophilia, and the like?

Also banning gay marriage would do absolutely nothing to restore the nuclear family.

If Imperiuz wants to restore the nuclear family, society needs to

A.) Make more babies

B.) Stop getting divorced!

Neither goal, by the way, is being stifled by gays.

However, marriage in legal terms is not a theological question, but an ideological one. David Cameron could be an atheist or deist or whatever, but if he is pro-gay marriage he isn't a conservative. He should go home and read his Edmund Burke one more time.

What did Edmund Burke say about gay marriage?