I have never seen anyone argue in such bad faith as you, all you do is angle shoot nickpicks, absolutely no effort to engage in point and counter point.

This is a perfect example.

I wonder how it is banks/financial institutions express how much they want to lend to businesses or anyone?????

Obviously through the cost they set on borrowing e.g. the interest rate.

Banks (have to keep saying +financial institutions/investors (its much easier and indeed standard to just say banks, but jeccross gonna jeccross) to avoid another nitpick semantics derail) don't force loans on businesses, of course any decision to borrow is in the hands of the business. If a business wants to borrow it will always be able to find finance at a given %, it can then decided accordingly.


All this is totally unnecessary, the simplification I made far from being incorrect was an absolutely fine and legitimate shorthand summarisation.

Instead of any actual debate we get this absurd retrenchment establishing assumptions you would assume everyone just accepted because you would rather angle shoot nick picks.

Better point out that there will be some circumstances in which businesses might not be able to raise finance, just to avoid nother nitpick from mister litteral.

Do you actually read my posts? I've been constantly nitpicked in this thread, and actually corrected you as it was necessary, your explanation was was so "simplified" it was incomprehensible in my opinion and the "shorthand" made it unclear what the driver of the effect was.

You then decided to nitpick my correction and claimed some nonsense about subprime not being the main cause of the financial crisis which you've decided to ignore in the above, and decided I'd posted a technical response that "failed so massively", despite there being nothing wrong with it.

Perhaps try reading the content of my posts before you decide to disagree with it just because I have a different political outlook to you. Let's move on though for everyone's sakes.

The simplification required no correction at all and was perfectly understandable to anyone remotely interested in actually having a conversation.

Result of crowding out = banks (financial institutions, better keep this up) lend less to businesses.

This is a perfectly fine shorthand for crowding out.

Also I never said sub prime was not the cause of the financial crises, I said sub prime did not cause the damage to the real economy, real economy probably being another common standard helpful short hand phrase you are somehow unaware off. This is of course a perfectly non controversial statement.

Every discussion with you quickly turns into lets move on because you seem incapable of basic communication.

Arlene and Ruth's brethren......

o good now i have to open myself up to credit card fraud if i wanna have a wank

is possibly worth mentioning that the minister in charge of wanking-and-other-internet-matters is called matt hancock

Don't users have to provide credit card details for gambling websites so that they can deposit money to gamble, rather than to prove age?

I was in favour of the slight nudge of making users opt in for porn. This is quite heavy-handed though and seems overly restrictive.

Trying to censor the internet or make it hard to access certain stuff seems a bit fruitless. Surely people will just use a vpn.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

I imagine somewhere down the line the thick tories think they can ban vpns along with encryption.

Yes this is bollocks - almost no one uses a credit card on gambling sites unless they are a degen because deposits are treated as cash advances and charged at a v high rate immediately.

Also using a CC as ID breaches terms and conditions eg from Barclaycard:

You must only ever reveal the card number to make a transaction, to report the loss or theft of the card, or if we ask you to.

There are more ways than credit card checks to verify age so likely there will multiple options (or it's the lock stock scenario of giving in bank details, getting ripped off then not wanting to follow up a complaint by admitting you looked at fannyfiddlers.com etc).

The fact that my child is clicks away from hardcore porn is frankly scary, this will make that much more difficult. And it will likely reduce casual use by adults, which should lead to a marginally better society overall. Also, if you want it you can run the risk online, or revert to a luddite exchange at a 24 hour petrol station/sweet shop.

I think your first priority should probably be better parenting,

Your thought is correct. It's also moot.

I half expected to see Helen Lovejoy "please think of the children", such is the predictability of your thought process. It is a common tactic to silence critics of 'raunch culture' by placing them in the prude box. In fact my point was essentially the same argument for putting porn on the top shelf, to keep out of the eye line of a child.

People are typically tetchy on this subject and tend to jump to base defensive positions. It's possible to accept the contradictions in your own head and take notice of the views of others.

You must be a hoot at parties.

simpsons think of the children lady was option 2 but this is the uk thread so went with something more local

Yeah, I mean I'm probably more wound up than I should be about people's attitudes on this, but supposed light hearted comments carry enormous baggage, such is the contempt for genuine feminism particularly online. It is frustrating because it becomes very difficult to debate reasonably when falsely categorised so quickly. Your post is a case in point: at whichever level this is taken, it still basically amounts to: lighten up. Which is exactly a major criticism levelled at those seeking to question the culture of casual sexism.

A simple light hearted pic from a very popular tv programme and you continue in one dimensional militant lefty mode. You're almost a caricature. Crack on though... (no pun intended)

let he who has never rubbed one out to his mum's avon catalogue cast the first stone

I'm not sure why you think this will make any difference Tom? Given this only affects commercial (presumably paid) sites, there will still be plenty of dodgy free material online for any child to find if they choose to. This is going to be no help at all to you, so the better parenting suggestion is not moot, and I suggest you get better filtering software and do the job yourself as this new policy will achieve nothing.

You don't get to decide what is worthy of serious debate and what is to be laughed off. It's not my problem if you don't understand the issues. Typical lack of substance and snide remark.

My limited understanding would be that any site which continued not to check ages would be unlawful. This doesn't stop them from existing but it does help marginalise and make access more difficult. Obviously as a parent I take my own responsibility. That doesn't mean the law shouldn't endeavour to assist in this. Otherwise what is the point of age restrictions in general.

That's the point sure it will be unlawful but the internet is full of unlawful sites. Banning piracy sites did very little to stem the tide of illegal downloading for example.

Just seems like a very pointless exercise very much like the talk of banning encryption software. It's just totally ridiculous unless we become a China like state.

I would much rather time energy resources and focus were put into other issues with the internet.

It's also worrying that our government clearly doesn't understand the technology of the internet in coming up with these ideas.

As aside if any of you have ever been to China it's crazy what you can't access from the internet there. You can't even access Google mail if I recall.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

People always say this but censoring the Internet for certain purposes (such as terrorism) has shown to be a fruitful strategy. Ultimately, if you make it harder for people to access, they stop doing it.

Much better choice imo.