[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;43200550]What the fuck are you guys crying about. It's basically the Tv channel blocker that your parents used to block the naughty station applied to the internet.[/QUOTE]
Internet is not like tv. At least not until they introduce website channel packs.
[QUOTE=Morgen;43200546]If they are doing it right they shouldn't need to filter it. All filtering is going to achieve is kids looking to get around it because they are curious as to why something is blocked.
I was referring to the parents forcing it on the kids, not that the filter is mandatory. Did you even watch the video?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;43200532]No, this is simply for parents that don't want to deal with explaining stuff to their kid.[/QUOTE]
so now it's wrong for parents to stop their children from seeing stuff? i guess we should let our children run free and let them do whatever they like. lets take off the sides of cots, after all, they're [I]forcing[/I] babies to stay in a confined space. lets let children watch whatever film takes their fancy, no worry about the nightmares after a 5 year old decides to watch a nightmare on elm street.
why are you completely opposed to parents being able to bring their child up in an environment they feel is suitable? this isn't [B]child abuse[/B]. i guess it was wrong of our parents not to give us as many sweets as we wanted, was it wrong of my parents to not let me paint my room black when i was 13?
if a child is raised badly, that isn't the fault of the government when they're trying to give more power to the parents, that's the parent's fault. a child has to be told [I]no[/I] sometimes, its how we learn to work in society.
[QUOTE=Jackald;43200602]Uh, i'm just thinking aloud here, but wouldn't horny kids who want porn to jack off to be more likely to go and have sex with actual girls, thus increasing the likelihood of teen pregnancy?[/QUOTE]
as mentioned above, teenagers will do this anyway. it's part of puberty.
[QUOTE=barrab;43200012]while i fully accept that many young people under the age of 18 are mature enough to handle it, one must look at the teen pregnancy and sti statistics and understand that these numbers are correlated with online pornography becoming more and more ubiquitous. this isn't censorship, this is enforcement of a law i rarely see anyone argue.
if you're smart enough not to get yourself into trouble, you're probably smart enough to get around this block or even turn it off yourself. there is no reason this block shouldn't be in place. people are asked for proof of age when buying alcohol because it is a legal requirement, but on a porn website, there was no way to prove anything until now. now obviously there are ways around it, but then again, there are also ways around being asked for proof of age when buying alcohol.[/QUOTE]
You are talking absolute shite. Please never have children.
[QUOTE=layla;43200613]You are talking absolute shite. Please never have children.[/QUOTE]
well that was a highly constructive post. i'm glad you addressed your issues with my post and didn't make yourself seem like an aggressive drunk with little to no cognitive function.
[QUOTE=smurfy;43199749]Here's what it looks like
[img]http://imgkk.com/i/uoe7.png[/img]
Full video about it narrated by weird text-to-speech-sounding guy
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv5ZQGFwvaY[/media][/QUOTE]
So is facepunch blocked under obscene and tasteless or hate and self harm?
[QUOTE=Jackald;43200633]I dunno, I know rampant masturbation was one thing that kept me from being particularly fussed with real girls when I was about 13...[/QUOTE]
and what is it exactly that makes you think that without masturbation, you would have been having sex at the age of 13? that's not meant to sound like an insult, i just fail to see the logic in your argument.
[QUOTE=barrab;43200626]well that was a highly constructive post. i'm glad you addressed your issues with my post and didn't make yourself seem like an aggressive drunk with little to no cognitive function.[/QUOTE]
I've dealt with my fair share of batshit crazy people in my time to know it's not worth the effort. I just genuinely hope you never have children because from the way you're talking, they will live a very sheltered and protective life and I do consider that child abuse.
[QUOTE=barrab;43200640]and what is it exactly that makes you think that without masturbation, you would have been having sex at the age of 13? that's not meant to sound like an insult, i just fail to see the logic in your argument.[/QUOTE]
If people don't vent sexual urges they are going to have a much stronger desire to have sex, this seems like common sense.
[QUOTE=layla;43200655]I've dealt with my fair share of batshit crazy people in my time to know it's not worth the effort. I just genuinely hope you never have children because from the way you're talking, they will live a very sheltered and protective life and I do consider that child abuse.[/QUOTE]
what part of my posts makes you think i would even use this filter with my children? what has caused you to draw such conclusions? you seem extremely close minded and quick to judge? is that what you'll tell your children? 'don't talk to that guy, he's crazy and has nothing to say'?
[QUOTE=Morgen;43200658]If people don't vent sexual urges they are going to have a much stronger desire to have sex, this seems like common sense.[/QUOTE]
the operative word being 'seems'. while there have been studies to support what you are saying in terms of lolicon and sexually abusing minors, they are also highly biased studies from a very different part of the world. if you've got any evidence to support your 'common sense', i'd love to see it. i've already been told the two statistics aren't correlated at all once in this thread.
[QUOTE=barrab;43200586]so now it's wrong for parents to stop their children from seeing stuff? i guess we should let our children run free and let them do whatever they like. lets take off the sides of cots, after all, they're [I]forcing[/I] babies to stay in a confined space. lets let children watch whatever film takes their fancy, no worry about the nightmares after a 5 year old decides to watch a nightmare on elm street.
why are you completely opposed to parents being able to bring their child up in an environment they feel is suitable? this isn't [B]child abuse[/B]. i guess it was wrong of our parents not to give us as many sweets as we wanted, was it wrong of my parents to not let me paint my room black when i was 13?
if a child is raised badly, that isn't the fault of the government when they're trying to give more power to the parents, that's the parent's fault. a child has to be told [I]no[/I] sometimes, its how we learn to work in society.[/QUOTE]
Lol this isn't a sign of control on the parents' part, it's the exact opposite. This is not like not giving you sweets, it's more like telling you there's something you can't have and it's placed somewhere you can't reach - what will the average child do? They'll get a chair and try to get it anyway. The proper thing would be to tell your child that too much candy is bad for you.
Age of consent is 16, legal age for porn is 18. I don't get it.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;43200721]Lol this isn't a sign of control on the parents' part, it's the exact opposite. This is not like not giving you sweets, it's more like telling you there's something you can't have and it's placed somewhere you can't reach - what will the average child do? They'll get a chair and try to get it anyway. The proper thing would be to tell your child that too much candy is bad for you.[/QUOTE]
and parents do tell our children these things, in fact, there is so much information out there about healthy eating, and yet: "Doctors say the UK has the highest rate of child obesity in Western Europe."
human beings will give into their urges sometimes, especially in children who have a lesser impulse control, that doesn't mean we should hand them whatever they want.
[QUOTE=barrab;43200740]human beings will give into their urges sometimes, especially in children who have a lesser impulse control, that doesn't mean we should hand them whatever they want.[/QUOTE]
In this specific instance, short of porn addiction, I disagree entirely. If there's no harm to the person looking at porn, what's the problem with giving them a blank porno check?
I turned it on and tryed to get on normal day websites.
Steam is blocked on strict mode because it is offensive and tasteless
Nice try BT, but I'm with Sky now. My porn is safe.
You can disable this so i dont see the problem tbh
Looking at the video they seem to do the filtering on the router so I doubt it'll work on any of their older routers or if you have your own unless they are going to update them or fallback to doing it on their end.
[QUOTE=barrab;43199943]to be fair, one shouldn't be watching pornography if they are under the age of 18 and this is easily turned off for anyone of age who wishes to masturbate (or just watch with the lights off) to online legal pornography.[/QUOTE]
Yes because 18 is a magical age at which everyone automatically becomes mature.
i was mature at 16 now give me my bukkake videos
Good job nobody gives a fuck about BT.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;43201555]Yes because 18 is a magical age at which everyone automatically becomes mature.[/QUOTE]
i'm not arguing the age, this is about the filter.
[editline]16th December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Conna;43201652]Good job nobody gives a fuck about BT.[/QUOTE]
except people using it maybe
Man this is so shitty.
I hate the whole idea of it. Filters should have been isolated to software, not something that ISP's control on their end.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
