I'll have to save a few pics of my regulars on my PS3 while I've got the chance

Ab Origine wrote:
That's how all these things start - "for the children". Health & Safety rules,the initial wave of CCTV,this potential unlimited well of censorship,and...if microchipping is introduced,you can bet the catalyst will be to "protect" abducted children. They wheel "for the children" out because,I guess,it's the easiest way to go for the emotional response and a big "YES!"

I absolutely do not agree with this porn blocking thing. I never watch porn (ewww,it's gross,sorry - it's just plain gross and I don't find it a turn on at all,although it is sometimes rather humourous xD )but you know what comes next - any other "undesirable" thing the government doesn't want people seeing

myshoono wrote:
Something like this you mean...



www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012...lobal-warming-murder

psketti wrote:
That,and tons of things

Although personally,I DO believe in man made climate change/weather modification (same thing really),although for different reasons than the government like to push.

People should be allowed to look at whatever they like on the internet,full stop. Mind you,we don't really know how censored it is currently One-sided information is as good as no information at all.

i always kinda felt bad for ted k. maybe they shoulda left his trees alone.

batou wrote:
He was fraaaaamed!!

In any case, this new opt in plan is also a way to really track who's looking at porn and how much they watch, not to mention the time they are watching..... it could be big trouble for people if the child they are supposed to be responsible for is "opting in" when he gets home from school and is unsupervised for a while.

ronisron wrote:
That's an angle I had not considered. Yet another excuse for big brother to intrude on the daily lives of people.

The Daily Mail is certainly at the forefront of promoting this. Which strikes me as odd as,quite often,the Mail is whining and complaining about restrictions being placed on freedom.

How about; if parents are in such a moral outrage and so worried about their child viewing porn,they actually ACT as parents and only allow underage children to use the computer in the family room where it can be monitored?

All the talk of the "nanny state" interfering where family should be given precedence seems to have been thrown out once a moral crusade becomes involved.

myshoono wrote:
Yep and how often have I harped on about the complete lack of responsibility?
Indeed, people actively WANT to remove responsibility because they believe 'freedom' is the exact opposite.....

The elite have done a brilliant job in completely screwing with the public mind.

I don't even have to watch my kids to know that they are secure online, but then again, I spent ages learning how to do that
If anything given my mantra I pass on to them on a regular basis, they're even more responsible than me at times.
I love watching my kids constantly ask questions that scare the crap out of their teachers, nothing like it :p

andyh wrote:
Isn't that the truth!

It sounds like you're a good parent

I remember being curious about porn when I was about 11. I was at my uncle's house and I kept on at him so he put some on and he sat and watched it with me,hahaha. I was like "Is that it?",kinda bored,and there was no storyline xD Didn't even bother to watch the whole thing. I don't know if it was because of that or not,but I never grew up wanting to watch it. It has comedic value,but it's not exactly erotic.