12-07-2014, 03:44 PM | #301 | |
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
Hadn't heard anything about this but looked it up when I saw your post. The law is against creating such material in the UK, rather than viewing. Still pretty retarded.
This is the same government that required ISPs to implent extensive filters by default unless specifically opted out of by the customer (some of which are fucking Orwellian and at least one was known to block Childline because it fell under "material pertaining to child abuse").
__________________
Quote:
|
|
12-07-2014, 05:42 PM | #302 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
Yeah it's a pretty amusing law in that its singular effect is to punish SMEs which is directly opposite to usual Tory agenda
|
12-08-2014, 04:06 AM | #303 |
Foot, meet mouth.
|
You're going to want to be careful when you claim that "sex with violent caning or whipping" is hard to defend.
But basically this entire law is a huge crock of shit. It's also a fairly obvious start from where they can start filtering the internet even more.
__________________
Spoiler: show |
12-08-2014, 07:06 AM | #304 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Harder to defend, harder. Words have meaning.
Any form of abuse is automatically harder to defend than non-abuse. I'm not saying you can't play Voltaire and defend the right to produce pornography of any flavor so long as all parties consent and are of sound mind when they do so: I'm saying it's harder to defend the right to harm another than it is to defend the right to not harm another. "I should have the right to view porn where a girl's butt is caned so violently her skin splits open" is a harder position to defend than "I should have the right to view porn where a girl squirts all over a see-through table." One requires a defense of harm (even if consented to), the other does not. And no, I'm not challenging anyone to defend it, so let's not derail the thread with a pointless show of rhetoric. Harder, I said. Words. Meanings.
__________________
|
12-08-2014, 09:05 PM | #305 |
Silver LO
|
I dunno, I don't see how it's harder to defend if it's all based on consent. Maybe the gal getting caned really, really enjoys it. Sure, things that cause permanent harm might be significantly harder to defend, but honestly, everyone has a fetish. I don't think fetish A that causes no permanent harm would be harder to defend than fetish B that also causes no permanent harm.
So I'm actually wholeheartedly agreeing with geet here, despite the fact that it's something rangeet said. Yeah just from hearing about it this law sounds absolutely retarded. |
12-08-2014, 09:44 PM | #306 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Really don't want to derail the thread so I'll keep this brief: if you want to understand the rebuttal to argument from mutual consent, look into pedophilia debate, euthanasia debate, and similar debate topics. The short of it is, "One or both of the parties involved is not in a proper position to give consent." (Be it mental immaturity, psychosis, mental handicap, etc.) The short appendix is, the rebuttal to caning consent would be that anyone who consents to being caned so violently that their bones are broken, nerves permanently damaged, skin split open, etc, is not in a right state of mind and thus is not in a position to give consent in the first place.
__________________
|
12-08-2014, 09:51 PM | #307 |
A New and Original Person
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 949
|
|
12-10-2014, 04:02 PM | #308 |
a quick fly cuppa
|
Meanwhile in Scotland the news of some vicious cuts literally everywhere by order of Westminster seems to be another nail in the coffin of the Scottish Labour Party, AKA The Red Tories. The No vote seems to have been a pyrrhic victory for them.
Good god, I sometimes look at the way these idiots run the country and think the nazi party woulda done a better job. |
12-11-2014, 06:44 AM | #309 |
Ducks gonna duck
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,824
|
|
12-11-2014, 10:02 AM | #310 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
That'll please Kenny.
|
12-11-2014, 03:20 PM | #311 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
If we're going to debate LGBT customers vs. Christian bakeries, we should probably spin it off into its own thread. We've had members of the LGBT community trolling Christian bakeries in the United States for the past few years now.
__________________
|
12-26-2014, 06:49 PM | #312 |
Ducks gonna duck
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,824
|
UKIP Leader Nigel Farage named Briton of the Year by The Times
How much dick do you think he had to suck to achieve this? |
01-01-2015, 07:06 PM | #313 |
Primordial Fishbeast
|
|
01-02-2015, 08:26 AM | #314 | |
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
So the three biggest parties in the commons are about as popular as cancer, no-one even knows who the Greens leader is (no, it's not Caroline Lucas), UKIP are picking up steam by telling prospective voters their failures aren't their fault, Alex Salmond and Boris Johnson are returning to Westminster and we've got a general election in May.
Could be an interesting year for British politics. Calling it now (woo for armchair pundetry); minority Conservative government backed up by UKIP on an as needed basis, snap second election and at least two of Cameron/Milliband/Clegg gone before the year ends.
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by Concept; 01-02-2015 at 08:53 AM. |
|
01-02-2015, 06:34 PM | #316 | |
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
Well he's hung on for like four years of being deeply unpopular now. I expect Danny Alexander will take over for him at some point though.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
02-05-2015, 07:51 AM | #317 | |
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
The result of a little research; I don't want to vote for any of these idiots. Almost leaning Green but a) anti-nuclear stance is more antiscientific bullshittery than climate change denial and b) they seem to have a habit of producing policies that seem likely to have the exact opposite effect to their stated aims. I don't want to give UKIP, the Tories, the Lib Dems or Labour the impression I support them and the SNP don't run outside of Scotland (and even if they did I wouldn't vote for what is essentially Scottish UKIP). S'also sad that if I had to rank party leaders by competence, it would be the same order as ranking them by how much I dislike their policies.
I'll still vote for someone, because politicians first priority is to get elected - if the younger generations start voting in percentages comparable to certain other generations (lol baby boomers) then politicians will start pandering to us the way they pander to said generations because doing so will be a seat winner. I just don't particularly like the idea of lowering myself to vote for any of these people.
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by Concept; 02-05-2015 at 08:21 AM. |
|
02-05-2015, 09:08 AM | #318 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
What constituency will you cast a vote in? I most likely know your Oxford Lib Dem PPC.
|
02-05-2015, 09:16 AM | #319 | |
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
Wycombe, so a safe Conservative seat (like a clear 10k majority or something last election). Not living in Oxford right now which is sad because last election I lived in a Labour/Lib Dem marginal so felt my vote actually counted for something.
Mini-rant; Last election I voted Labour because the Lib Dem candidate for Oxford East (Steve something?) was a patronising arse, or at least came across that way in the leaflets and shit we were bombarded with and every time he opened his mouth. I think his personal unpopularity amongst students is a big part of the reason Labour quadrupled their lead despite the constituency gaining a chunk of the neighboring Lib Dem constituency for the 2010 election. That and Labour supporting non-voters turning out in fear of losing the seat.
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by Concept; 02-05-2015 at 09:37 AM. |
|
02-05-2015, 09:51 AM | #320 |
Primordial Fishbeast
|
Is the Monster Raving Loony Party running in your area?
|
02-05-2015, 09:56 AM | #321 | |
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
We don't even have a Lib Dem candidate yet, as far as I can find out. So far it's Conservative (who at the last election had a lead of 20% of the votes cast), Labour, UKIP and Green.
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by Concept; 02-05-2015 at 12:48 PM. |
|
02-05-2015, 10:09 AM | #322 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Today's talk in the thread reminds me of two things:
1. The time you lot made a big braggy UK-pride deal about how British politics aren't anything like American politics, and how it is clear as day that at a somewhat rapid pace your election climate does indeed seem to be morphing into one rather similar to our own, with candidates pushing more heavily for election via paid appearances, with voters feeling more and more disaffected by candidates' platforms, with the whole "voting for the least of many evils" mentality, etc.I dunno. If you have faith in the political process, then maybe you should couple that faith with the drive necessary to either a) effect change from within or else b) start your own party. I mean, heck: B worked for the Germans. (Pirate Party, hooooooo~!)
__________________
|
02-05-2015, 12:10 PM | #323 | |
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
If anything our politics is becoming less American; compared to the American two party system, we're used to having a three (well, two and a half) and this time around have arguably five or six parties that could feasibly be part of the next government (maybe even seven, s'always possible someone turns to Plaid or the Greens to bulk out a coalition). Sadly this doesn't make it any better; political parties are, generally speaking, shit the world over and several of ours are very similar (for example SNP and Plaid are UKIP for Scotland and Wales, respectively). Politicians want to get elected and the baby boomers turn out to vote en masse more than any other demographic, and that generation is frequently selfish, racist, homophobic, scared of change and completely in denial that any opinions other than theirs could possibly be valid. Unfortunately they make up the largest portion of the people who actually vote, so parties that don't pander to them don't get elected (this is why I will vote despite not particularly liking any of the parties).
The only real upside to British politics as opposed to US is if we particularly want to punish one party we still have more than one option to vote for. *Shrug*. Politics the world over has always been vote for the least of many evils. Not sure where you're pulling the paid appearances from? UK politics has fairly strict funding/advertising rules, and all MP candidates get stuff like a free postage to every constituent and to appear at the hustings and stuff to make sure they all have a fair chance to get their message out regardless of funding.
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by Concept; 02-05-2015 at 12:20 PM. |
|
02-05-2015, 12:15 PM | #324 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
When I wrote that line I had in mind celebrity guest appearances at various rallies. Recalling from the Scottish secession vote, people like Bono or Gordon Brown. The latter would cleanly fall under your explanation but the former not so much.
__________________
|
02-05-2015, 12:23 PM | #325 | |
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
Oh I see your point. Yeah there has been a rise in that kind of populist claptrap as people get less and less happy with Lab/Con. Neither Cameron nor Milliband is particularly well regarded and the traditional protest vote (Lib Dem) has made a complete mess of their first chance at government so two thirds of their voter base has abandoned them - hence populist parties with minimal actual politics getting a look in. Direct celebrity appearances haven't been too prevalent - there was a fair amount of Scottish celebrities expressing themselves in a personal capacity on Twitter but far less actually making appearances (and in fairness with Gordon Brown he's still one of Scotlands 59 MPs and has the highest political profile of any of them), and that thankfully hasn't yet bled over at all into general elections (can't think of any celebrity involvement in general election campaign whatsoever, off the top of my head).
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by Concept; 02-05-2015 at 01:29 PM. |
|
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|