Yes, I know their agenda. TPTB see every policy as a means to an end. They may support lgbt, free speech and free market in one instance and then do a 180 turn and go against them if they don't serve their goals anymore. It's all part of the grand chessboard and playing the dialectical sides to get to a desirable synthesis. They are above politics and ideologies - all they care about is power. Of course I know they don't do this because they're concerned with the wellbeing of society and are somehow based all of a sudden.
Absolutely. And that is precisely why I'd be very wary to support any power solution whatsoever. Especially when you know who does it come from and what ends does it serve.
Basically, all we need to do is ask ourselves a simple question: does it [insert any proposal, policy, rule or even daily habit here] serves my freedom as an individual or does it suppresses it? Answer to this question usually is all you need to determine whether it is worth supporting something or not.
Basically, all we need to do is ask ourselves a simple question: does it [insert any proposal, policy, rule or even daily habit here] serves my freedom as an individual or does it suppresses it? Answer to this question usually is all you need to determine whether it is worth supporting something or not.
If you place personal liberty above everything, then you have to grant it to everyone else. So you couldn't really have any qualms against lgbt, abortion, usury, OF, feminism, grooming of children and other forms of degeneracy that ultimately destroy society. It's radical liberalism and exactly what the jews push on western society to get it ready for the 1984-style final revolution.
My point was censorship is not bad on principle and we ought to suppress certain ideas and behaviors in society. So in general I'm all for decency laws and fighting degeneracy and that trumps any personal "freedom" there might be.
The thing is, when an agent with bad intentions does something that is right, that thing is objectively right regardless of the moral character of the agent doing it. Saying otherwise would be similar to an ad hominem fallacy.
I mean this as a general direction. Not an absolute law. I'm against any power solution by default, which then can be evaluated on case by case basis. For example, of course murder is bad and to some extent should be suppressed, so in this particular case I'm in agreement that some kind of regulation is needed, but that absolutely does not mean that I trust said regulators or that I would allow them regulate something else. That, whatever that may be, on it's turn should be evaluated separately. Case by case basis is a key here.
Currently society has given elites kind of a carte blanche in regards to regulation and that is its gravest mistake. To trust and to give power to someone else. Trust in authority, belief that there even exists such a thing as authority, is the main reason of current downfall of our civilization.
It's radical liberalism...
No, it's not. It's voluntaryism.
...regardless of the moral character of the agent doing it...
Nope, here I disagree completely and absolutely! It is very important who exactly said proposal comes from. In a sense you could say that ad hominem is completely justified in this case.
A very simple example: Your have to hire a babysitter for, say, a few hours. There are two proposals. One comes from known child abuser and the second one comes from a person without such history. Of course you'd choose the second option. You'd be absolutely mad to do otherwise. Or, in case other options are not possible, you wouldn't hire them at all and simply cancel whatever errands you had previously.
Is this ad hominem by your logic? Yes, of course it is! Absolutely justified and necessary ad hominem at that!
So, going back to our world, it is absolutely a must to reject anything coming from the likes of WEF, WHO, EU and all the rest of those abominations. Whatever coming from that side of ballpark is rotten from the very get-go and you are absolutely mad to think otherwise. Their real intention is the most important thing in this case and we both know that it is not what it says on a tin.
Nope, here I disagree completely and absolutely! It is very important who exactly said proposal comes from. In a sense you could say that ad hominem is completely justified in this case.
So a thing can't be true because WEF says it? That's a logical fallacy. We're not talking about their intentions but about the truthfulness of the proposition made. In this case "porn is bad for society and should be highly restricted" is a true proposition, no ifs or buts. Its truth value is independent of the person saying it and it will be true even if a gooner or the owner of OF said it.
The issue of the technocratic elite tightening their regime and using authoritarian measures to do it is distinct from it, or at least my point was they can be viewed separately. Both radical leftist and "based" right populist policies can be used to move their agenda. Case in point - D.J. Trump and Elon.
It makes perfect sense they will start restricting the internet under the auspice of "defending children" from harmful content. This is the best strategy because they know everyone can get behind this, especially right-minded people who are currently more wary of censorship and government overreach in their lives. They want to get to China level restriction ideally and they're playing the long game. So as you can see, while I acknowledge their intentions, that in no way changes the fact that porn is bad and should be restricted on pure principle, even if Satan himself is enforcing the restriction.
They want to get to China level restriction ideally and they're playing the long game.
This I do agree with. Regarding restrictions though... I think I'm gonna go with "no" on this one. I don't think it should be restricted. That should be parent's job and not government's.
Weapons are dangerous too. Should those be restricted? What about knives? In UK nanny state they have to show passport before buying a fucking knife. Do you think that is ok? Why not take this a step further? Everyone should not only prove their age when buying a knife, but also register all their knives in possession and write an explanation for each one of them why they need it. Whould you be on board for such a proposition as well? I don't mean this as a strawman, but more like an illustration of what a dangerous slippery slope this really is.
It's literally a "Save the children" bill that will allow the government to identify online noticers and/or keep them off mainstream platforms. It's a cohencidence that it's being pushed in Europe where they are arresting people, physically, for online posts. Do you want to dox yourself on this site right now? Because that's what's being proposed.
Second, this will reduce online porn by about the amount similar laws reduced "piracy" in the 2000s. Coomers will host sites outside of the EU, distribute through private chats, or use encrypted P2P. And, since it's more hidden, there sill be zero incentive for major porn distributors to block CP, snuff, bestiality etc. Pornhub got called out (correctly) for hosting CP because they were huge and notorious but if they were operating via private encrypted networks, no one would have even know about it. Not saying this is an effective way to deal with porn, but these laws won't do anything about the really bad stuff and might make it harder to expose.
Finally, you don't find porn online unless you go looking for it. All the major sites already have age gates, mostly based around either credit card or phone numbers, which will block any kid of a parent who gives any sort of crap. Beyond that, adults need to opt in. I didn't even know Steam hosted porn games (not surprised, though) because I never allowed NSFW content on my account. It's not a problem to any non-degenerate, but the laws to fight it create problems for people trying to speak truth to power, including the truth about porn.
Blocking porn will not change the minds, or even habits, of coomers. It will not protect children. What it will do is legitimise the corporate porn producers who are probably the ones pushing for it in the first place. The only game in town will be OnlyFans and Pornhub, which will be considered "safe" porn, because they follow the rules but despite the fact that they're both notorious for hosting CP and providing a platform for actual women to exploit themselves. What is the point of requiring IDs for individuals when Youtube literally pushes sexualized cartoon charaters on their "kids" platform?
They are fools, they cannot see even when it is explained to them. They cannot understand that it is this exact emotional reaction they're having that is being counted on to allow this through to begin with.
If governments cared about the damages of porn, they'd just ban porn
Do not argue with that guy. He has fully been seduced by the gospel of the Jewish God, He who demands joy in slavery, He who invents nothing but ways to torture and kill the gentiles, He who turned Western Civilization into a land of undeath, whose name is Elohim, Lord of the Hosts, Baal and Yahweh.
If they can censor porn they'll censor everything else soon enough. This is the place that supports rapefugees raping children and arresting people who talk about it.
Exactly, the EU is the worst but can't complain when they do something good. That would be like an ad hominem (just because bad person says it, it therefore is a bad argument).
They get a kick out of you seeing what you will become if you give up and let it slide.
Unfortunately for them, they do not have the reslilience of the Great Grandfather.
"You can't use this site without ..."
ok, bye.
"You can't use any site without..."
I am from time time before computers, let alone internet. That wouldn't be all bad.
https://avn.com/news/legal/eu-gives-platforms-12-months-to-deploy-strict-age-verification-179936
And there's the other shoe...
Good. Jewish ran smut industry has ruined society.
The EU is the second most jewed place on Earth after Israel. If they're doing this there, it's because it's part of the jews' plan.
You mean the third after the US. There are 6 times more jews in the US than in the EU.
Ever wondered why NY, home of Wall Str the Fed, was initially named New Amsterdam?
Look at your username and remember why you chose it. We both know this isn't about smut, don't we?
Yes, I know their agenda. TPTB see every policy as a means to an end. They may support lgbt, free speech and free market in one instance and then do a 180 turn and go against them if they don't serve their goals anymore. It's all part of the grand chessboard and playing the dialectical sides to get to a desirable synthesis. They are above politics and ideologies - all they care about is power. Of course I know they don't do this because they're concerned with the wellbeing of society and are somehow based all of a sudden.
Absolutely. And that is precisely why I'd be very wary to support any power solution whatsoever. Especially when you know who does it come from and what ends does it serve.
Basically, all we need to do is ask ourselves a simple question: does it [insert any proposal, policy, rule or even daily habit here] serves my freedom as an individual or does it suppresses it? Answer to this question usually is all you need to determine whether it is worth supporting something or not.
If you place personal liberty above everything, then you have to grant it to everyone else. So you couldn't really have any qualms against lgbt, abortion, usury, OF, feminism, grooming of children and other forms of degeneracy that ultimately destroy society. It's radical liberalism and exactly what the jews push on western society to get it ready for the 1984-style final revolution.
My point was censorship is not bad on principle and we ought to suppress certain ideas and behaviors in society. So in general I'm all for decency laws and fighting degeneracy and that trumps any personal "freedom" there might be.
The thing is, when an agent with bad intentions does something that is right, that thing is objectively right regardless of the moral character of the agent doing it. Saying otherwise would be similar to an ad hominem fallacy.
I mean this as a general direction. Not an absolute law. I'm against any power solution by default, which then can be evaluated on case by case basis. For example, of course murder is bad and to some extent should be suppressed, so in this particular case I'm in agreement that some kind of regulation is needed, but that absolutely does not mean that I trust said regulators or that I would allow them regulate something else. That, whatever that may be, on it's turn should be evaluated separately. Case by case basis is a key here.
Currently society has given elites kind of a carte blanche in regards to regulation and that is its gravest mistake. To trust and to give power to someone else. Trust in authority, belief that there even exists such a thing as authority, is the main reason of current downfall of our civilization.
No, it's not. It's voluntaryism.
Nope, here I disagree completely and absolutely! It is very important who exactly said proposal comes from. In a sense you could say that ad hominem is completely justified in this case.
A very simple example: Your have to hire a babysitter for, say, a few hours. There are two proposals. One comes from known child abuser and the second one comes from a person without such history. Of course you'd choose the second option. You'd be absolutely mad to do otherwise. Or, in case other options are not possible, you wouldn't hire them at all and simply cancel whatever errands you had previously.
Is this ad hominem by your logic? Yes, of course it is! Absolutely justified and necessary ad hominem at that!
So, going back to our world, it is absolutely a must to reject anything coming from the likes of WEF, WHO, EU and all the rest of those abominations. Whatever coming from that side of ballpark is rotten from the very get-go and you are absolutely mad to think otherwise. Their real intention is the most important thing in this case and we both know that it is not what it says on a tin.
So a thing can't be true because WEF says it? That's a logical fallacy. We're not talking about their intentions but about the truthfulness of the proposition made. In this case "porn is bad for society and should be highly restricted" is a true proposition, no ifs or buts. Its truth value is independent of the person saying it and it will be true even if a gooner or the owner of OF said it.
The issue of the technocratic elite tightening their regime and using authoritarian measures to do it is distinct from it, or at least my point was they can be viewed separately. Both radical leftist and "based" right populist policies can be used to move their agenda. Case in point - D.J. Trump and Elon.
It makes perfect sense they will start restricting the internet under the auspice of "defending children" from harmful content. This is the best strategy because they know everyone can get behind this, especially right-minded people who are currently more wary of censorship and government overreach in their lives. They want to get to China level restriction ideally and they're playing the long game. So as you can see, while I acknowledge their intentions, that in no way changes the fact that porn is bad and should be restricted on pure principle, even if Satan himself is enforcing the restriction.
This I do agree with. Regarding restrictions though... I think I'm gonna go with "no" on this one. I don't think it should be restricted. That should be parent's job and not government's.
Weapons are dangerous too. Should those be restricted? What about knives? In UK nanny state they have to show passport before buying a fucking knife. Do you think that is ok? Why not take this a step further? Everyone should not only prove their age when buying a knife, but also register all their knives in possession and write an explanation for each one of them why they need it. Whould you be on board for such a proposition as well? I don't mean this as a strawman, but more like an illustration of what a dangerous slippery slope this really is.
Seriously, I see no problem whatsoever with this. Fuck porn
You think this is about porn?
It's literally a "Save the children" bill that will allow the government to identify online noticers and/or keep them off mainstream platforms. It's a cohencidence that it's being pushed in Europe where they are arresting people, physically, for online posts. Do you want to dox yourself on this site right now? Because that's what's being proposed.
Second, this will reduce online porn by about the amount similar laws reduced "piracy" in the 2000s. Coomers will host sites outside of the EU, distribute through private chats, or use encrypted P2P. And, since it's more hidden, there sill be zero incentive for major porn distributors to block CP, snuff, bestiality etc. Pornhub got called out (correctly) for hosting CP because they were huge and notorious but if they were operating via private encrypted networks, no one would have even know about it. Not saying this is an effective way to deal with porn, but these laws won't do anything about the really bad stuff and might make it harder to expose.
Finally, you don't find porn online unless you go looking for it. All the major sites already have age gates, mostly based around either credit card or phone numbers, which will block any kid of a parent who gives any sort of crap. Beyond that, adults need to opt in. I didn't even know Steam hosted porn games (not surprised, though) because I never allowed NSFW content on my account. It's not a problem to any non-degenerate, but the laws to fight it create problems for people trying to speak truth to power, including the truth about porn.
Blocking porn will not change the minds, or even habits, of coomers. It will not protect children. What it will do is legitimise the corporate porn producers who are probably the ones pushing for it in the first place. The only game in town will be OnlyFans and Pornhub, which will be considered "safe" porn, because they follow the rules but despite the fact that they're both notorious for hosting CP and providing a platform for actual women to exploit themselves. What is the point of requiring IDs for individuals when Youtube literally pushes sexualized cartoon charaters on their "kids" platform?
Don't be a useful idiot.
They are fools, they cannot see even when it is explained to them. They cannot understand that it is this exact emotional reaction they're having that is being counted on to allow this through to begin with.
If governments cared about the damages of porn, they'd just ban porn
Do not argue with that guy. He has fully been seduced by the gospel of the Jewish God, He who demands joy in slavery, He who invents nothing but ways to torture and kill the gentiles, He who turned Western Civilization into a land of undeath, whose name is Elohim, Lord of the Hosts, Baal and Yahweh.
If they can censor porn they'll censor everything else soon enough. This is the place that supports rapefugees raping children and arresting people who talk about it.
Exactly, the EU is the worst but can't complain when they do something good. That would be like an ad hominem (just because bad person says it, it therefore is a bad argument).