NotGoodNotBad
flatpack
- sex and violence on television. Yes, I'd be happy to have this filtered. More accurately, I'd say I'd be happy not to have it there in the first place (along with swearing in every other programme). So many channels, so much sex and violence. Back in the old days of channels you could count on the fingers of one hand, when films like Clockwork Orange were not banned at the cinema, never mind in your house, did anyone really suffer from not having instant access to this stuff?
Well, at least you're consistent. But I wonder if you can tell me whether or not you think that generations of sexual repression was good for people. That is, after all, what you're proposing - a return to the 1950s.
I don't particularly disagree with you about the violence, which I think is far too prevalent but I do about the sex.
- viewing porn as a human right
Well no-one has said this on this thread perhaps, though I've not read every post, but I've seen and heard it plenty of times elsewhere. It's not a strawman argument, as if we didn't accept the argument that people have a right to view porn/violence etc., and we did accept the argument that it can be harmful, we wouldn't have it in films and TV programmes in the first place.
Why wouldn't we? Since when did the government become the expert on what was best for everyone?
Much of the problem I have with your argument is that you assume that government is kind and benevolent and acts in our best interest and in my experience that really isn't the case. You're relying on the 'right' decision being made by a group of people who have self-selected through being better at backstabbing each other. They aren't selected on the basis of wisdom, intelligence or ability. And you want them to decide what people are allowed to watch on their TV and on the internet.
Internet is another matter as it is less controllable and can be produced by individuals rather than corporations. Of course, the "harm" argument is another one that proponents will argue against, and is difficult to prove either way, and we could debate till next century about exact definitions of porn and violence.
Indeed, and that is yet another of the problems of this 'porn filter' nonsense.
- can't discuss this without addressing the technical issues. OK, fair enough. Maybe it can't be done. It's just that I don't think the "education" that people are pushing is any kind of answer, or we wouldn't have gambling/alcoholism/drug use/obesity and many others of society's problems.
I like a drink. I know it's supposed to be bad for me. But I still like it. I, as a functioning, thinking rational human being have made that apparently irrational choice.
At some point you have to trust people to just get on with their lives, and stop interfering and treating them like children. If they make decisions that are bad for them - that's their bag.