Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK newsagents to sell ‘porn passes’ to visit X-rated websites

independent.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 71 posts

Re: UK newsagents to sell ‘porn passes’ to visit X-rated websites

#61

Post by ytwySXpMbS »

plouffy wrote: post #13

"Some 56 per cent of British adults admitted to watching pornography in a 2014 study carried out by The Observer." Looks like 44% of British adults are liars.

I know you're joking, but you raise an interesting point. I honestly think porn is potentially harmful, and having stopped watching it myself, understand why 44% would too. It's brutally extreme depiction of sex almost desensitises the brain to the actual experience, at least in my experience. Especially with the endorphins reinforcing the behaviour, it can get close to an addiction.

Re: UK newsagents to sell ‘porn passes’ to visit X-rated websites

#62

Post by foldr »

TangoTrotFox wrote: post #59
foldr wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Knowing that if you abuse people enough eventually you'll run into someone who shoots back is a massive check on abuse of power. It doesn't seem to be in practice. Did it stop segregation in the South, for example? That was a far more egregious abuse of power than a porn pass.

There were laws in most states banning blacks from owning guns [1], presumably largely out of fear that they might fight back if armed. Even long after the civil war laws were passed to implicitly prevent blacks from being able to obtain guns. For instance the National Firearms Act of 1934 put a whopping $200 tax on firearms purchases. The goal, like many earlier bills, was just to ensure that blacks and poor whites…

>There were laws in most states banning blacks from owning guns [1], presumably largely out of fear that they might fight back if armed

Those laws were passed because black Americans in the South did have easy access to guns following the civil war. The guns don't seem to have helped them much.

Re: UK newsagents to sell ‘porn passes’ to visit X-rated websites

#63

Post by hippich »

pjc50 wrote: post #17
verroq wrote: post #2

Can someone explain to me, what exactly is wrong with the UK? Where did it all go so wrong?

The UK has always been this bad. It's Mary Whitehouse or the Lady Chatterly trial all over again. Public discourse is a hypocrisy-ridden disaster. The Daily Mail has been a big driver for this, while they profit from an endless stream of prurient bikini pictures. The few million middle-class voters in marginal constituencies whose votes actually matter are easily convinced by the papers that the Internet is out to co…

I am really curious about "frankly they have a point". Could you expand more on it?

Re: UK newsagents to sell ‘porn passes’ to visit X-rated websites

#64

Post by jakeogh »

pjc50 wrote: post #16
dopamean wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this response being downvoted? I don't actually know very much about the situation so I really don't have the tools to evaluate what is wrong (or right) with this comment.

Because it's an incredibly stupid claim that firearms would somehow improve the situation? I mean, we had a live-fire slow-burn civil war in the UK for decades (1970s-2000). It didn't help.

Ban carrying knives next? And 3D printers; gonna need a license and a pile of DRM phoning home to make sure you didn't make a banned object.

Re: UK newsagents to sell ‘porn passes’ to visit X-rated websites

#65

Post by TangoTrotFox »

foldr wrote: post #62
TangoTrotFox wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were laws in most states banning blacks from owning guns [1], presumably largely out of fear that they might fight back if armed. Even long after the civil war laws were passed to implicitly prevent blacks from being able to obtain guns. For instance the National Firearms Act of 1934 put a whopping $200 tax on firearms purchases. The goal, like many earlier bills, was just to ensure that blacks and poor whites…

>There were laws in most states banning blacks from owning guns [1], presumably largely out of fear that they might fight back if armed Those laws were passed because black Americans in the South did have easy access to guns following the civil war. The guns don't seem to have helped them much.

You can please provide a source instead of just stating things that don't really make any sense? Guns were quite expensive and there were countless laws preventing blacks from owning or buying guns as well as making it a crime to provide them to blacks. "Blacks had easy access to guns" does not follow from these facts.

Re: UK newsagents to sell ‘porn passes’ to visit X-rated websites

#66

Post by foldr »

TangoTrotFox wrote: post #65
foldr wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There were laws in most states banning blacks from owning guns [1], presumably largely out of fear that they might fight back if armed Those laws were passed because black Americans in the South did have easy access to guns following the civil war. The guns don't seem to have helped them much.

You can please provide a source instead of just stating things that don't really make any sense? Guns were quite expensive and there were countless laws preventing blacks from owning or buying guns as well as making it a crime to provide them to blacks. "Blacks had easy access to guns" does not follow from these facts.

Those laws were passed following the civil war because of concerns about groups of black soldiers who did in fact have guns.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/02/what-reconstruction...

>The end of the Civil War left an army of occupation in the South. The natural tensions of military occupation were exacerbated by black troops. Only a fraction of Union troops occupied the South after the war, and the balance mustered out according to length of service. Because blacks were not admitted into ranks until the middle of the war, they were retained at a higher rate, making the occupying force “blacker” than the one that won the war. The roughly 200,000 black Americans who served in the Union Army comprised an estimated 10 percent of the North’s total fighting force. But by the last quarter of 1865, blacks made up about one-third of the occupation army. Many Southerners took this as a deliberate Union insult.

Re: UK newsagents to sell ‘porn passes’ to visit X-rated websites

#67

Post by TangoTrotFox »

foldr wrote: post #66
TangoTrotFox wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can please provide a source instead of just stating things that don't really make any sense? Guns were quite expensive and there were countless laws preventing blacks from owning or buying guns as well as making it a crime to provide them to blacks. "Blacks had easy access to guns" does not follow from these facts.

Those laws were passed following the civil war because of concerns about groups of black soldiers who did in fact have guns. https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/02/what-reconstruction... >The end of the Civil War left an army of occupation in the South. The natural tensions of military occupation were exacerbated by black troops. Only a fraction of Union troops occupied the South after the war, and the balance must…

The slave population in 1860 was about 4 million. ~150k surviving black soldiers with an unknown number who decided to stay in south, doesn't really justify stating that blacks had easy access to weapons.

That said, I think you were also stating something different than I was. In particular a recurring theme in history is that people don't tend to fiercely resist disarmament. So even if blacks had easy access to guns prior to disarmament, we would have expected them to give them up with relatively minimal resistance. This happens time and again because disarmament, in and of itself does, not seem particularly heinous. But the problem is that the heinous acts, that would more clearly justify violent resistance, start only after disarmament - when it's already too late.

Re: UK newsagents to sell ‘porn passes’ to visit X-rated websites

#68

Post by foldr »

TangoTrotFox wrote: post #67
foldr wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those laws were passed following the civil war because of concerns about groups of black soldiers who did in fact have guns. https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/02/what-reconstruction... >The end of the Civil War left an army of occupation in the South. The natural tensions of military occupation were exacerbated by black troops. Only a fraction of Union troops occupied the South after the war, and the balance must…

The slave population in 1860 was about 4 million. ~150k surviving black soldiers with an unknown number who decided to stay in south, doesn't really justify stating that blacks had easy access to weapons. That said, I think you were also stating something different than I was. In particular a recurring theme in history is that people don't tend to fiercely resist disarmament. So even if blacks had easy access to guns…

>So even if blacks had easy access to guns prior to disarmament, we would have expected them to give them up with relatively minimal resistance.

That seems to pretty clearly undermine the whole case for guns somehow preventing violations of rights.

>~150k surviving black soldiers with an unknown number who decided to stay in south, doesn't really justify stating that blacks had easy access to weapons.

Then why did they bother passing the laws? It's also patently absurd to suggest that an occupying army doesn't constitute a significant force. No citizens' militia is likely to approach the capabilities of a 150k well-organized soldiers.

Re: UK newsagents to sell ‘porn passes’ to visit X-rated websites

#69

Post by TangoTrotFox »

foldr wrote: post #68
TangoTrotFox wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The slave population in 1860 was about 4 million. ~150k surviving black soldiers with an unknown number who decided to stay in south, doesn't really justify stating that blacks had easy access to weapons. That said, I think you were also stating something different than I was. In particular a recurring theme in history is that people don't tend to fiercely resist disarmament. So even if blacks had easy access to guns…

>So even if blacks had easy access to guns prior to disarmament, we would have expected them to give them up with relatively minimal resistance. That seems to pretty clearly undermine the whole case for guns somehow preventing violations of rights. >~150k surviving black soldiers with an unknown number who decided to stay in south, doesn't really justify stating that blacks had easy access to weapons. Then why did th…

The reason the laws are passed is because of an awareness that the acts they planned to engage in might justifiably result in violent resistance. And this is, again, a very typical pattern. Guns prevent egregious violations of rights. But egregious violations of rights tend to be preceded by confiscation of guns or other forms of gun control, which is generally not seen as sufficient justification for violent resistance.

This is even more true when the control is done through more clever means. For instance one way that black individuals and poor whites (who were just as much a cause for concern - see: armed labor strikes) were prevented from having access to weapons was by putting absurdly large taxes on them. Since the tax ostensibly affects everybody equally, it makes it much more difficult to argue that it's discriminatory even though such acts 100% through and through were aimed with exclusively discriminatory ends in mind.

Re: UK newsagents to sell ‘porn passes’ to visit X-rated websites

#70

Post by foldr »

TangoTrotFox wrote: post #69
foldr wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So even if blacks had easy access to guns prior to disarmament, we would have expected them to give them up with relatively minimal resistance. That seems to pretty clearly undermine the whole case for guns somehow preventing violations of rights. >~150k surviving black soldiers with an unknown number who decided to stay in south, doesn't really justify stating that blacks had easy access to weapons. Then why did th…

The reason the laws are passed is because of an awareness that the acts they planned to engage in might justifiably result in violent resistance. And this is, again, a very typical pattern. Guns prevent egregious violations of rights. But egregious violations of rights tend to be preceded by confiscation of guns or other forms of gun control, which is generally not seen as sufficient justification for violent resista…

> Guns prevent egregious violations of rights. But egregious violations of rights tend to be preceded by confiscation of guns or other forms of gun control, which is generally not seen as sufficient justification for violent resistance.

Again, if true, that clearly undermines the claim that guns prevent violations of rights.

Post reply on HN