Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Hot Topics => Topic started by: TylerDurden on December 27, 2008, 08:44:17 pm
-
I've just read an article in the Daily Telegraph where some idiot UK government Minister is stating that he's about to go ahead with setting age-restrictions on viewing some websites, with some censorship of websites involved as well. I can just see where this is going:- no doubt, websites like our forum will be viewed as "dangerous" and get censored.
-
:o It's complete ignorance! We could get placed in the same category as "how to commit suicide" and "anorexic tips" sites just because of advocating raw animal foods?
Everyone should choose who is put in office very carefully. Banks should be regulated and the Internet too but with good, knowlegeable reason - not ignorance! >:
-
They can be understood. In the Internet today is too much dangerous resources. And all because of the fact that there is no legal framework governing this area.
-
I disagree. Censorship is always wrong. Besides, the Internet allows people to flout specific, national draconian laws which are relevant only to 1 country, by accessing foreign websites. A good example is the increasing use by Chinese citizens of Japanese websites to get round the restriction on free Internet speech by the Chinese government. Plus, the Internet is a great way to avoid the draconian libel laws that exist in the UK, as most websites/forums are more or less international in scope, rather than national.
Sure, there are spammers, but these can be dealt with via better anti-spam protection etc.
-
Personally I think the internet needs to stay the free, cesspool of humanity that it is, so that it can function as a sort of uninhibited idea flow. That isn't to say that I advocate child porn and crap like that, I mean I think we could all go without seeing goats and stuff -v (and I don't suggest googling that if you've been gifted with not running into it), but if you restrict one type of thing, you can restrict a lot of things that shouldn't be restricted. Like RAF being stuck with dangerous things like pro-anorexia sites, just because of ignorance. There can be a lot of unforeseen consequences with censorship laws.
I think it's up to the servers to restrict what goes on there and who sees it and then it's up to them and the user to comply with local laws, imo. It shouldn't be at the provider level. I don't want comcast editing what I can access. The internet should stay an open book, with both good things and really not good things.
What I'm afraid of is if they start monitoring a bad thing, like child porn or keeping kids from running into porn sites, then everyone will get used to the idea and confidence will rise--they'll start monitoring more and more.
-
This is where I see a major difference. If you're an adult and want to "hurt" yourself by anyones definition, fine but when it comes to things like child porn, I would like to see them censored. Children are being abused because some bastard wants to make money. Also, those sites do nothing more than get pedophiles riled up so that they're more likely to go out and find children to molest themselves.
Blue Host does have certain restrictions as to what kind of sites they will host. They won't host any porn at all and child porn is illegal period. The problem is is that people get hosting in foreign countries where laws are not enforced. Just my opinion but these sites should be censored. I don't think we'll have to worry about too much censorship in the US. There's the anarchistcookbook.com and if censorship does go further, that site will be gone long before this one. Even Australia censors hard-core porn but I don't really see that going much further. If it gets to the point that pro-anorexia and anarchists sites start becoming censored, that's when I'd start worrying about sites like this one getting lumped in with them but I do believe that would be, and is a problem more for citizens of other countries, which is just as disconcerting.
Many people are afraid of gay marriage because of what they think it might lead to. People being allowed to eventually marry animals or children, which is absolutely ridiculous. It may not be the best analogy but you get the picture. For me, being afraid of what something might lead to, isn't a good enough reason to do away with it altogether whether it be gay marriage, regulation of banks, or Internet censorship. Just my opinion.
Happy New Year!
P.S. Usually, the best way to pique my curiosity is to tell me not to look for/at something but I'll heed your warning this time. I once got smacked in the face with a wave because I was told "DON'T TURN AROUND!" while I was in the water. :)
-
As the network admin and web host of this forum and as a web developer I do not host nor accept work for pornography; because it is my choice of how I do my business.
As far as troublesome emails and hackers, I have blacklisted via my firewall the most troublesome sources of spam and hackers. I cannot disclose my blacklist as that would open up my servers to harm.
As far as internet laws are concerned, I am not in favor of censorship of the internet. I like the internet as free as is possible. I've been on the internet since 1995. I believe censorship does more harm than good. But that is just me. As for protecting my children from harmful internet content I will just come up with my own at home solution for my children. And I'm the father, so my teachings count.
One of my blogs http://www.pronatal.org is not just pro-family, pro-child production, it is also pro-polygamy... for some reason multiple families are frowned upon in industrialized western countries where promiscuity is applauded... e.g. Playboy's Hugh Hefner and his 3 live in girlfriends... but if Hugh decides to make babies with all 3 live in girlfriends and forms 3 live in families... he would no longer be cool in the western world... and his reality show would no longer be acceptable in western media... and if internet laws become ridiculous... will be censored.
I do appreciate and can think of the idea of classifying internet content via domain names. Say all porn goes to .xxx or .porn so people know what they are looking for. They can easily choose to firewall off .xxx or .porn from their home computers.
-
I'd just like to address a few points. First of all , the primary reason why the Internet got going in the first place was because of all the porn sites that were there from the beginning|(indeed, at one point, porn consisted of something like 80-90%+ of the Internet). So porn actually helped the Internet grow, regardless of what one's personal view is of porn.
Secondly, the whole business of child porn is hopelessly overblown. Judging from media reports, one finds that almost all such websites feature made-up/photoshopped fake pictures of children being abused. The way I see it, such websites allow people with unusual tendencies to get rid of them/sublimate them in a way that doesn't harm others. I certainly don't think that someone should be prosecuted, therefore, for merely watching such images online, as they are not directly harming anyone in any way.
By the way, there was 1 case sometime in the 80s, I think, where an American citizen from Wisconsin or some similiar neighbouring State exploited the fact that there was no local State law against Bestiality (or marrying animals?), so was able to (legally) marry his horse. Of course, he got a lot of hate-mail from the public, who felt that he was making a mockery of the USA, but he got away with it.
-
I agree with the observation that porn makes new media move. As with the internet, porn helped DVDs, VHS and Betamax get going... betamax is what we had in asia.
-
Betamax is great! I love Betamax! What is Betamax? ???
Just kidding :D
What is Porn? -d
-
Secondly, the whole business of child porn is hopelessly overblown. Judging from media reports, one finds that almost all such websites feature made-up/photoshopped fake pictures of children being abused. The way I see it, such websites allow people with unusual tendencies to get rid of them/sulbimate them in a way that doesn't harm others. I certainly don't think that someone should be prosecuted, therefore, for merely watching such images online, as they are not directly harming anyone in any way.
What you speak of is not real child porn but could be taken as such. Take a look at the countries that already ban and censor the real thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship). Most developed countries do but there are those that have no restrictions whatsoever and people can use anonymous proxys to get to them.
Even being allowed access to anything that resembles child porn will tempt a pedophile to commit the act whether it be barely leagal or illeagal porn and have the same ramifications.
There's also a big difference between pre and post puberty porn. That is, people attracted to four-year-olds are not going to be satisfied with sixteen-year-olds who have secondary sex characheristics but are still easily taken advantage of.
I'd just like to address a few points. First of all , the primary reason why the Internet got going in the first place was because of all the porn sites that were there from the beginning|(indeed, at one point, porn consisted of something like 80-90%+ of the Internet). So porn actually helped the Internet grow, regardless of what one's personal view is of porn.
I believe "sex" was and still is the most searched for word on the Internet but the Internet got started by the military and science community as a way to easily and privately communicate over long distances. http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml
-
By the way, there was 1 case sometime in the 80s, I think, where an American citizen from Wisconsin or some similiar neighbouring State exploited the fact that there was no local State law against Bestiality (or marrying animals?), so was able to (legally) marry his horse. Of course, he got a lot of hate-mail from the public, who felt that he was making a mockery of the USA, but he got away with it.
I can't really find much about this other than an episode of Jerry Springer that never aired but I can't help but think that the "legally" part is an urban myth. I wouldn't doubt there may be someone out there who's married his horse in an unofficial capacity. Did the horse have a birth certificate and other forms of ID to obtain a marriage license? How did the horse sign it? Dexterous lips? What were the horses vows? He must have married Mr. Ed. ;) At any rate, very humorous!
-
All I recall is that his State had no power to do anything to him, at first, as bestiality isn't illegal in that State, but they were able to forcibly send his horse to be slaughtered when the vet declared the horse too decrepit to have a sustainable old age.
-
You disagree that videos of child porno, violence, kills and others must be banned?
-
Depends on how people define child.
Until 1990, the marrying age for women in my country was 14.
They raised the marrying age to 18.
Now there are clamors to raise the marrying age to 24.
So the definition of a child gets re-defined each year in each country.
And if we are to ban what people define as child porn, let's just ban all of porn all together... then we go to what defines porn.
I remembering emailing my sister in the USA naked pictures of my children 1,2 and 4 years old then. And she explains that in the USA naked pictures of children are considered porn...
My point is, until one world government comes along, how can we ever get to synchronize laws and regulations?
-
You disagree that videos of child porno, violence, kills and others must be banned?
POVARBY, I think people who give no good information, but join diet forums to sell shoes and pills should be banned.
-
You disagree that videos of child porno, violence, kills and others must be banned?
Let's face it, there's no snuff-movie market, and most child porno is made up of faked images. But that's by the by. A lot of people, such as the UK and Euro police, have used the slender arguments about child pornography, to argue that it's OK to legally hack into the private computers of citizens without needing a warrant(there's an actual law for this being seriously considered). This sort of censorship has to be stopped cold, therefore.
As far as videos of violence, we see them all the time in the media re the effects of bombings, fires etc. Sanitizing the news to protect us just makes people less mature and ignorant of the real world.
-
"the primary reason why the Internet got going in the first place was because of all the porn sites that were there from the beginning"
as i remember, the world wide web began as a means to exchange research related information in academic circles
the 1st web browser i used was mosaic for the mac; netscape came later
-
"the primary reason why the Internet got going in the first place was because of all the porn sites that were there from the beginning"
as i remember, the world wide web began as a means to exchange research related information in academic circles
the 1st web browser i used was mosaic for the mac; netscape came later
Just to clarify, the Internet started out as an experiment for the military, then became a research tool, but it only grew substantially in popularity when porn sites came onstream:-
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2004-03-09-onlineporn_x.htm
-
How about this be moved to Hot Topics?
-
Depends on how people define child.
Until 1990, the marrying age for women in my country was 14.
They raised the marrying age to 18.
Now there are clamors to raise the marrying age to 24.
So the definition of a child gets re-defined each year in each country.
And if we are to ban what people define as child porn, let's just ban all of porn all together... then we go to what defines porn.
I remembering emailing my sister in the USA naked pictures of my children 1,2 and 4 years old then. And she explains that in the USA naked pictures of children are considered porn...
My point is, until one world government comes along, how can we ever get to synchronize laws and regulations?
In the US, thirteen-year-olds can get married with parental consent. This usually only happens if one of the children becomes pregnant. They can reproduce, marry, but still not be allowed to participate in pornography. They cannot obtain a driver's license, drink, join the military, and still must have to attend school.
It will be a long time before there is one world government. That's why there is a need for limited censorship.
I don't think your sister would be arrested for having those pictures, as they are family pics, with no child porn in her possession, but if they were to end up elsewhere on the Internet, on a kiddie porn site, you'd probably be angry as hell. Someone could have intercepted those pics in transit. This is just an unlikely supposition. I'm not that paranoid. Just stating what could be.
My opinion is that banning porn altogether wouldn't really hurt the Internet. Sure, anonymity helps in buying/viewing porn, but would everyone give up the Internet without it? I think not. "Darn! Porn is gone. I'm not going to look for anything else that I'm interested in."
I'm only using your post as an example. It's actually to all participants.
-
mmmm... hot topics.
Maybe some women think this is a hot topic too.
You know, I've been thinking sometimes the reason we may not be getting too many women posters is because men like us enjoy discussing hot topics without getting into a fight.
I do notice that women mostly are conformists and discussions like these don't appeal to them. I mean, many of them if they ever discussed a topic this way they would be angry at each other. Now I'm crossing over to the "We want more women" thread.
Sure, go ahead and move this to the hot topics section.
-
Please read your messages. :)
-
I'd just like to address a few points. First of all , the primary reason why the Internet got going in the first place was because of all the porn sites that were there from the beginning|(indeed, at one point, porn consisted of something like 80-90%+ of the Internet). So porn actually helped the Internet grow, regardless of what one's personal view is of porn.
Secondly, the whole business of child porn is hopelessly overblown. Judging from media reports, one finds that almost all such websites feature made-up/photoshopped fake pictures of children being abused. The way I see it, such websites allow people with unusual tendencies to get rid of them/sulbimate them in a way that doesn't harm others. I certainly don't think that someone should be prosecuted, therefore, for merely watching such images online, as they are not directly harming anyone in any way.
By the way, there was 1 case sometime in the 80s, I think, where an American citizen from Wisconsin or some similiar neighbouring State exploited the fact that there was no local State law against Bestiality (or marrying animals?), so was able to (legally) marry his horse. Of course, he got a lot of hate-mail from the public, who felt that he was making a mockery of the USA, but he got away with it.
So, let's separate "pornet" from Internet.
-
POVARBY, I think people who give no good information, but join diet forums to sell shoes and pills should be banned.
Do you always read only signatures?
-
POVARBY, I think people who give no good information, but join diet forums to sell shoes and pills should be banned.
I have been bothered by this post since I first read it. But alas, I gave up moderator duties on this forum weeks ago. IMO Povarby, while having a signature line that may seem/be contrary to many people's health ideals, has not made any remarks in the posts I have read that would warrant banning, or even a warning.
Rawzi's comments, while not technically a personal attack, are about as helpful to a health forum as Povarby's sig line, imho. There are ways to respectfully engage in debate, heated debate even. Anything less is really unhealthy, isn't it?
Everyone makes mistakes from time to time. If we can learn by them, then we grow. Om shanti to all.
-
My opinion is that banning porn altogether wouldn't really hurt the Internet. Sure, anonymity helps in buying/viewing porn, but would everyone give up the Internet without it? I think not. "Darn! Porn is gone. I'm not going to look for anything else that I'm interested in."
There is no such thing as anonymity in viewing porn on the web, not even by proxy methinks.
My former martial arts teacher (who just happened to want to work with my autistic son years ago when I knew him) was stung by the US Dept. of Homeland Security a few years ago for purchasing child porn from another country. Pretty much shot a very popular and lucrative career down the toilet. Plus, he got to go spend some years in prison.
-
Wow. US department of homeland security. Sounds like 1984, the book by George Orwell. Big brother is watching you. How easy it is to frame people nowadays. If I am pissed off at someone, I break into his PC and view porn, download a torrent, or download mp3s and the komunist amerikan government will arrest the poor slob.
I've always suspected this transformation if komunist amerika.... this is why I don't bother applying for a visa, nor visiting there again in the near future. Who knows? Maybe their database shows I've been blogging about promoting pro-life and pro-polygamy values... also my writings against the failures of western medicine... horrors... I'm a heretic to komunist religion.
US laws are not just irritating... they are downright horrific... Oh yes, Germany has its share of horrific laws like I know home schooling is against the law... and it is a thought crime to even question / doubt the validity of the jewish holocaust.... thought crimes... hmmm....
They should round up millions of filipinos with mp3s in their players maybe 99% "shared".
-
I've heard a lot about how draconian US laws have become, simply using the whole 9/11 business as an excuse. One fallout has been a drop in peoples' desire to go on holiday to the US, as they resent being strip-searched etc. for hours every time they visit - I've known of certain acquaintances from India having their lives made hell by US Customs officials because they looked vaguely "Middle-Eastern" in appearance, despite being Hindus and therefore hardly pro-Muslim.
Mind you, UK Customs ofificials are just as bad, with incredibly long queues at the security-check-in areas, and the searches they do on me(I always seem to be singled out as a "suspicious character") are now so intrusive, post 9/11, that I often suspect the Customs officials of harbouring secret homosexual tendencies.
Anyway, what I'm hoping is that it will increasingly become impossible to police the Internet, as it continues to grow randomly in size. Perhaps if an unbreakable (quantum?-)code could be invented, that might protect peoples' privacy.
-
Check this out... plainly evil:
Rules that force internet companies to keep details of every email sent in the UK are being criticised.
From March, information on the amount of messages delivered will be kept for a year.
The content of individual emails will not be held but the timing and number of each communication are and security experts say it is an attack on privacy and a waste of money.
The law is being implemented as part an EC directive, and the Government will reportedly have to pay the internet service providers (ISP) more than £25 million to ensure the law is obeyed.
Dr Richard Clayton, a security researcher at the University of Cambridge's computer lab, said the costs of the regulation could have been better spent.
"There's going to be a record of every single email which arrived addressed to you and all the emails you sent out via your ISP. That of course includes all the spam," he said.
"There are much better things to do to spend our billions on than snooping on everybody in the country just on the off chance that they're a criminal."
The Earl of Northesk, a Conservative peer on the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, said it meant anyone's movements could be traced 24 hours a day.
He said: "This degree of storage is equivalent to having access to every second, every minute, every hour of your life.
"People have to worry about the scale, the virtuality of your life being exposed to round about 500 public authorities.
"Under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, privacy is a fundamental right... it is important to protect the principle of privacy because once you've lost it it's very difficult to recover."
The Home Office said the data would be useful for combating crime.
A spokesman said: "Communications data is crucial for the police to be able to investigate and identify criminal suspects by examining their contacts, establish relationships between conspirators and place them in a specific location at a certain time.
"The data retained is not the content of emails but only the email addresses and times they were sent.
"Implementing the EC Directive will enable UK law enforcement agencies to benefit fully from historical communications data in increasingly complex criminal and terrorist investigations and will enhance our national security."
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090109/tuk-new-email-law-attack-on-privacy-dba1618.html
-------------
Note: I'm a network administrator and I'm responsible for thousands of email addresses too. I wonder how much they will be paying guys like me to put up with this evil plot to track down every email? It's a whole new industry about to boom.
-
I know, it's horrible. I read about it some days ago.There's already an EU-inspired move to allow European police to hack into private computers from afar without a warrant.Hopefully, it'll be blocked, but the trouble is that the pro-liberty groups seem only interested in watering it down rather than blocking it, making it seem as though they have no power to enforce it.
-
The real criminal responsibility and only it can clear the Internet from all sorts of porn sites. Until that moment when authorities around the world and the largest Internet service providers do not pay attention to that problem, until you see in the network sites with child pornography.
-
The real criminal responsibility and only it can clear the Internet from all sorts of porn sites. Until that moment when authorities around the world and the largest Internet service providers do not pay attention to that problem, until you see in the network sites with child pornography.
That didn't make sense. Is this a spam member?
-
That didn't make sense. Is this a spam member?
he may be a spammer, as he says sketchy stuff. Personally i think he just has poor english and myb a tinny bit of spammin...