From: JNugent73@mail.com 
  
 On 21/08/2025 02:49 PM, Max Demian wrote: 
  
 > On 20/08/2025 17:07, Norman Wells wrote: 
 >> On 20/08/2025 16:02, Mark Goodge wrote: 
 > 
 >>> As far as that's concerned, I'm sure there are campaigners who won't be 
 >>> satisfied with anything less than 100% effectiveness. And they will, of 
 >>> course, be disappointed. But that's no different to road safety 
 >>> campaigners who think we should prevent 100% of all RTA deaths. That's 
 >>> impossible, too. 
 >>> But that doesn't mean we can't usefully reduce the number of deaths. 
 >>> Nobody is arguing that because we can't prevent 100% of RTA deaths, 
 >>> there's no point trying to even reduce them. The real debate is 
 >>> about how best to reduce them, and what are the best ways of going 
 >>> about that. 
 >>> 
 >>> Similarly with preventing kids seeing porn. We can never have a 
 >>> system that makes it completely impossible. There will always be some 
 >>> way round it. But that doesn't mean it isn't possible to reduce the 
 >>> number of kids seeing porn. 
 > 
 >> You mean like giving them the vote and sending them off to play down 
 >> the polling station instead? 
 > 
 >>> Whether age verification is the best way of addressing that is a valid 
 >>> debate. But nobody is crazy enough to suggest that because something 
 >>> isn't 100% effective, there's no point even bothering to try. 
 > 
 >> The problem is that it it's those who can and will get round it who 
 >> are more likely to be those you want to stop. 
 > 
 > I don't see why anyone should be stopped from doing anything on the 
 > Internet. 
  
 Conspiring to cause explosions and commit mass murder? 
  
 > If parents want to restrict their tots that's down to them. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)