We made a mistake with Rudd, didn't we? (2 Viewers)

[Lauchlan]

m8. you're an utter disgrace to the internet community. its been out since 1971, and you're telling me many normal people dont know it?

That makes no shit sense.
You should seriously get out of the rock you're under.

EDIT:
also, what you previously posted




using proxies have never been illegal ever since the internet was founded.

im telling you that many normal people dont care about IT. they just like facebook/myspace. i dont disagree with them, i dont 100% disagree with you either.
im not interested in your lecture on how to speak like a robot.

 

[Graney]

it's not that bad. i've heard the claims against it, but ive seen no evidence - so show me the evidence

Harm minimisation is overwhelmingly proven to work, and is supported by both Australian political parties.

Harm reduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've linked a few websites below. These websites are among the greatest resources for harm minimization available, and are powerful forces for good in the world.
They would also be classified as RC under Australian classification guidelines, and censored under the proposed filter. The Australian government would block people from accessing these essential resources.

Erowid
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/home.php

The Peaceful Pill Handbook - Google Books

ergo, the filter is blocking resources that are proven to reduce harm and suffering in the world. It's entirely realistic to say this filter if implemented, has the capacity to cause individuals immense suffering and distress, that would have otherwise been avoided.

 

[Lauchlan]

I said it is commonly called that, not that it is true Peer 2 Peer.

its so simple that you dont need to say, so why have such an abreviation? everyone knows whether its 1 on 1 or more. so shutup, pick your head up from the pile of drool under your monitor.

 

[Lauchlan]

Who opposes it � WhatYouDidntKnow.Org

finally! ok i have this, about the senators speech. i have mixed views about this. more links would be nice.

 

[Lauchlan]

I'm so fucking thankful you aren't allowed to vote in this election.

i don't want to vote in this election. if rudd stays, i will be critical on his next term. but if tony enters..... *shudder*

 

[Lauchlan]

Why are you ignoring this link?

Who opposes it � WhatYouDidntKnow.Org

I dunno champ, I'm pretty sure established companies like iiNet, Google and Yahoo speaking out against it and the UNSW study all constitute as evidence.

nice.

 

[Lauchlan]

Jesus Christ, you're stupid.

Obviously Blastus didn't say that the Liberal Party publishes a policy that says that you dumb shit. The policy that the Libs are suggesting (and have suggested) is that parents make their own decisions about filtering their own and their children's internet access. They have also published a filter that they deem able to perform this. Labour's current policy decides, SECRETLY, what *all* of Australia can and can't view. It slows the internet down because the filter has to check everything you're sending for shit it doesn't want. We as consumers already have a shitty broadband network to deal with as it is. There's absolutely no goddamn need to make it any slower.

It's censorship. It's demeaning. It's patronising. It's a restriction of our freedom. It is bullshit.

*Fuck*.

i agree with some of what your saying. but i think there is some content that shouldn't be allowed on our internet. i see both arguments. the POLICY in question has many downsides which ive heard. i dont want slower broadband either, and i understand your autonomy argument. you have a fair opinion, i respect that and share parts of it with you in agreement. let me say again that internet is not the only issue here. if you want to discuss health, education ect. i would gladly engage. you're a bit like the opposition in a way from what ive heard. you focus on one issue and ignore the other issue, like health - you agree with most of rudd's policy, but you oppose it, but dont reveal your policy. anyways i cant stand this anymore. ive been typing with one hand and writing with the other for too long.

 

[SylviaB]

the BEST

 

[Lauchlan]

Harm minimisation is overwhelmingly proven to work, and is supported by both Australian political parties.

Harm reduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've linked a few websites below. These websites are among the greatest resources for harm minimization available, and are powerful forces for good in the world.
They would also be classified as RC under Australian classification guidelines, and censored under the proposed filter. The Australian government would block people from accessing these essential resources.

Erowid
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/home.php

The Peaceful Pill Handbook - Google Books

ergo, the filter is blocking resources that are proven to reduce harm and suffering in the world. It's entirely realistic to say this filter if implemented, has the capacity to cause individuals immense suffering and distress, that would have otherwise been avoided.

im used to the nsw det filtering.... if its anything like that i oppose it. but if its not i still maintain my mixed feelings.

 

[Lauchlan]

Fuck you're a stupid cunt

no u, take a joke... maybe i should censor your swearing....

 

[tommykins]

the censor jokes were old since...well - ever

 

[SylviaB]

no u, take a joke... maybe i should censor your swearing....

wow

 

[Graney]

im used to the nsw det filtering.... if its anything like that i oppose it. but if its not i still maintain my mixed feelings.

It's exactly like what I just said it's like.

I support nothing I cannot justify and explain.

If you can't reason or understand why the resources I posted should be blocked, you should at most be noncommittal about whether to support the filter, and spend more time evaluating the evidence.

Having read my decent justification for why it is a matter of urgency that these resources must remain available, you would currently be leaning towards my position that the filter should not be implemented in it's current form, this is the position you should take until you find superior contrary evidence and argument. I can promise you, having personally read widely on this issue, no intellectually sound contrary argument exists, and if one did I would change my position in an instant.

If you find a contrary argument, I'll be here to discuss it. Until then, you'd be foolish to maintain your current position.

 

[jarkler]

Stop replying to Lauchlan's posts.

 

[runoutofsleep]

gosh this thread

 

[Riet]

im not taking about the exact details of the policy, im talking about the effects of the policy. it aims to do this for australia and filter out this overseas and within the country.
who cares about the exact computer nerd terms... obviously computer nerds such as yourselves.

RC isn't a computer term you dumbshit.

Honestly this will just make it harder to prosecute people who are into child porn because it will be forced even further underground and behind proxies and what not which makes it unbelievably harder to track.

Not to mention that is ignoring the fact that it is fucking censorship. Seriously this is why I wish we had a real fucking constitution and bill of rights. Only political freedom of speech is protected in Australia and hopefully that would be enough for someone to challenge this filter on the grounds that they want to censor shit like wikileaks and the blacklist itself.

So glad I have EU citizenship, would never want to live in a country that has more in common with Iran and China than freedom.

 

[Lauchlan]

It's exactly like what I just said it's like.

I support nothing I cannot justify and explain.

If you can't reason or understand why the resources I posted should be blocked, you should at most be noncommittal about whether to support the filter, and spend more time evaluating the evidence.

Having read my decent justification for why it is a matter of urgency that these resources must remain available, you would currently be leaning towards my position that the filter should not be implemented in it's current form, this is the position you should take until you find superior contrary evidence and argument. I can promise you, having personally read widely on this issue, no intellectually sound contrary argument exists, and if one did I would change my position in an instant.

If you find a contrary argument, I'll be here to discuss it. Until then, you'd be foolish to maintain your current position.

My "current position" was never really revealed. I admit i treated this as more of a general political debate because the article is about just that. It is not specifically about the national internet filter debate, and i tried to stress that.

Nevertheless, i agree with you on many points. At last! There will always be disagreement, thats fine. The policy is the issue here. Not the abreviations, or computer jargon (or both)... You obviously have given this a lot of thought... now that you have said this i no longer feel the need (nor the want - i was being facetious... thats just how i am on Bos at least) to continue.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

My "current position" was never really revealed. I admit i treated this as more of a general political debate because the article is about just that. It is not specifically about the national internet filter debate, and i tried to stress that.

Nevertheless, i agree with you on many points. At last! There will always be disagreement, thats fine. The policy is the issue here. Not the abreviations, or computer jargon (or both)... You obviously have given this a lot of thought... now that you have said this i no longer feel the need (nor the want - i was being facetious... thats just how i am on Bos at least) to continue.

your not going to continue because u lost

no rational person would support a policy that isn't going to work and in fact will do more harm then good. and don't ask why its not going to work or why its not good because those points have clearly been pointed out to u and i don't want to start recycling arguments

no I'm not a liberal supporter both parties are shit

 

[Lauchlan]

your not going to continue because u lost

no rational person would support a policy that isn't going to work and in fact will do more harm then good. and don't ask why its not going to work or why its not good because those points have clearly been pointed out to u and i don't want to start recycling arguments

no I'm not a liberal supporter both parties are shit

cool, how are you declaring who wins? it seems rather stupid to just say i lost because i wanted to move on. my argument was about the principles of policies by parties in general, not just the internet filter - i dont really care about the policy itself, but the implications of it - which was pointed out... however one-sided. i remember saying the exact same as bolded, and agree that this shouldn't be continued.

anyone who wants to continue this thread shall talk about another policy because this one has been discussed to death. and dont be immature - noone won. esp, as you dont even support the party that opposes what you oppose. haha i agree they both have their fails.

answer this:
1. what does everyone think about the health policy put forward?
2. what does everyone think about the education policy already done plus the national curriculum put forward?

 

[lilvietboi93]

Both health policy and education revolution are another addition of Rudd's failures