The Wish They Were All Dead Tory Cunt Thread

[Letters]

And Jesus said unto the children, know that two wrongs maketh right.

Really? Do you think that is what I am saying? If so then case in point of your inability to see any complexity or nuance. From a Christian point of view yes, things are either right or wrong.
But humanly we do see degrees in things, we think murder is worse than petty stealing. Both are "wrong" but almost no-one would argue that the legal consequence should be the same for both.
So, you may see surveillance as "wrong" and you may see terrorism as "wrong" but if the first wrong is less wrong than the second and mitigates the second then is that for the greater good?
I don't think that is a simple question with an obvious yes or no answer.

I would say yes, with an "if". And the "if" is "if innocent people can continue to get on with their daily lives without consequence". And generally, we can. There's CCTV everywhere but I go where I want, as do you. There's inevitably monitoring of online messages but I say what I want, as do you - as evidenced by the fact that you haven't has a knock at the door or been "disappeared" after all your posts on here. Could that change? Yes. Is it likely to...impossible to rule out but I personally think it unlikely.

According to this:

http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/...mber-Rudd-news

"Ms Rudd said: 'I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions face the full force of the law.'"

Most of that I wouldn't have a problem with. Far-right propaganda needs to be defined, I imagine they are talking about neo-Nazi stuff and white supremacy.
There is a danger here of course but restricting everything and restricting nothing are not the only two options here.

Very close on giving up on you dude. It seems hopeless.

Same. Logic and reason are not your fortes.
Your replies are generally vague, you constantly change the subject and frequently hint at knowing better than the rest of us poor saps without ever backing that up with anything of substance.
Low energy. Sad.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Religious extremists fantasise about fascistic societies? Since when? What's your definition of fascism?

So a caliphate is not a fascistic society?

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

And by liberal democracy, what do you mean? Democracy is the agreement between the many to suppress the liberty and choice of the few. Liberal, in its true sense, is tolerance of diverse opinions and behaviours, provided those opinions and behaviours don't cause harm to others. You can't have a liberal democracy, unless you are using the modern day definition of liberal, which ironically is very close to fascism in a practical sense.

Apart from the true dystopian awfulness of having to pay taxes. I still find it hard to understand the level of repression you claim to experience.

You chose not to participate in what you see as invidious on human liberty. I think most of your beliefs are nonsense and predicated on a belief in human nature that is similarly contradicted by your assertion of the inate evil of politicians and their masters when they are just as “human” as the rest of us. Ignorant, fearful, avaricious and still largely tribal.

You believe I’m a slave whose glad of his chains and my willingness to show gratitude to the forger of the links conspires to keep you in captivity.

A liberal democracy is where you can either chose to vote for cunt a or cunt b, or you can decide that voting for either cunt is not for you. The term liberalism is corrupted by those who label others, the regressive left are branded with the term liberal where I agree with you they are anything but.

Freedom is not absolute within It. But there are few if any examples of total freedom from consequence.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dev...ait-627974.amp

However here is one example where I do wish a libertarian mindset would take hold

You want to surf during the storm?. Great just don’t expect anyone to come and rescue you when it goes bad for you

[Niall_Quinn]

Really? Do you think that is what I am saying? If so then case in point of your inability to see any complexity or nuance. From a Christian point of view yes, things are either right or wrong.
But humanly we do see degrees in things, we think murder is worse than petty stealing. Both are "wrong" but almost no-one would argue that the legal consequence should be the same for both.
So, you may see surveillance as "wrong" and you may see terrorism as "wrong" but if the first wrong is less wrong than the second and mitigates the second then is that for the greater good?
I don't think that is a simple question with an obvious yes or no answer.

I would say yes, with an "if". And the "if" is "if innocent people can continue to get on with their daily lives without consequence". And generally, we can. There's CCTV everywhere but I go where I want, as do you. There's inevitably monitoring of online messages but I say what I want, as do you - as evidenced by the fact that you haven't has a knock at the door or been "disappeared" after all your posts on here. Could that change? Yes. Is it likely to...impossible to rule out but I personally think it unlikely.

According to this:

http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/...mber-Rudd-news

"Ms Rudd said: 'I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions face the full force of the law.'"

Most of that I wouldn't have a problem with. Far-right propaganda needs to be defined, I imagine they are talking about neo-Nazi stuff and white supremacy.
There is a danger here of course but restricting everything and restricting nothing are not the only two options here.


Same. Logic and reason are not your fortes.
Your replies are generally vague, you constantly change the subject and frequently hint at knowing better than the rest of us poor saps without ever backing that up with anything of substance.
Low energy. Sad.

But you are completely unable to see that the first bad thing can potentially mitigate the second bad thing and could potentially mean things being better overall.

The charlatan's argument and a common justification for some of the most unspeakable crimes in human history. But carry on pretending you're a Christian if it makes you feel better.

And I clearly didn't say surveillance was wrong. You made that bit up, as is your habit. What's wrong is to treat everyone as guilty until they prove themselves innocent, which is the fundamental principle of the surveillance state. There's a huge difference between tapping the phone of a suspected terrorist and tapping the entire population's phones, as you know of course. Yet you choose to be vague in the hope of sustaining an argument on the Internet. Who knows what you actually believe in?

Your "ifs" and "buts" are meaningless if you are happy to turn the authority for defining and executing these processes over to demonstrable liars, thieves and murderers. Although I suspect you'll also overlook the documented track record of these deciders.

Somehow you can justify total surveillance and 15 years imprisonment for watching the wrong video --- so our liberties can be maintained. Quite amazing.

Why don't you just come clean and admit that when authority instructs you to jump, you ask how high? That's your entire nature, seemingly.

[Niall_Quinn]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dev...ait-627974.amp

However here is one example where I do wish a libertarian mindset would take hold

You want to surf during the storm?. Great just don’t expect anyone to come and rescue you when it goes bad for you

That's exactly the way it should be. Though charity should never be discouraged. Do whatever the fuck you want provided it doesn't harm anybody else. That's the definition of liberty and even the tiniest infringement, no matter how well intentioned, is unconscionable authoritarianism.

[Niall_Quinn]

So a caliphate is not a fascistic society?

Well if it is then so is every political society if such a broad definition is going to be used. A caliphate, depending on your brand of Islam, is far more akin to either a monarchy or a (funnily enough) democracy or oligarchy. Either power is absolute and bestowed by a supernatural entity, or it is assigned by the masses or a privileged subset of the messes.

[Niall_Quinn]

Apart from the true dystopian awfulness of having to pay taxes. I still find it hard to understand the level of repression you claim to experience.

You chose not to participate in what you see as invidious on human liberty. I think most of your beliefs are nonsense and predicated on a belief in human nature that is similarly contradicted by your assertion of the inate evil of politicians and their masters when they are just as “human” as the rest of us. Ignorant, fearful, avaricious and still largely tribal.

You believe I’m a slave whose glad of his chains and my willingness to show gratitude to the forger of the links conspires to keep you in captivity.

A liberal democracy is where you can either chose to vote for cunt a or cunt b, or you can decide that voting for either cunt is not for you. The term liberalism is corrupted by those who label others, the regressive left are branded with the term liberal where I agree with you they are anything but.

Freedom is not absolute within It. But there are few if any examples of total freedom from consequence.

Having to, being forced to against your will under threat of violence. "Having to" anything is quite obviously wrong. Accepting it, even for a perceived greater good, doesn't make it right. It's quite amazing we have to listen to so much shit from a fraction of the population who are "oppressed" because their entirely inconsequential views (which they are quite free to hold, by the way) are not enshrined in law, whereas almost every person is the subject of actual harm perpetrated by the state and people see that as quite normal.

Freedom is indeed absolute. It is indivisible, it either exists or is absent. If there is a single restriction then freedom is annihilated instantly. That's not to say there aren't consequences arising from freedom. There are.

[Letters]

What's wrong is to treat everyone as guilty until they prove themselves innocent, which is the fundamental principle of the surveillance state.

I think the principle is closer to "we don't know who is guilty so we will keep an eye on everyone". And I'm OK with that IF it doesn't affect the innocent, which it generally doesn't, or hasn't so far. You are not treated as guilty, your freedoms to go where you want and say what you want are not restricted. If you feel they are then explain how. My phone isn't "tapped", no-one is sitting there listening to my conversations. There are probably algorithms sitting there listening out for certain words and at some point I may become someone that "they" are interested in but if so then something will have gone seriously wrong. And that is a concern, but I doubt it happens often.
How else can "they" know who to target?

Somehow you can justify total surveillance and 15 years imprisonment for watching the wrong video --- so our liberties can be maintained.

That is not what is being proposed and no I wouldn't try and justify that.

[GP]

Thanks for PMing me those bomb making instructions and MPs addresses, by the way.