Muslims against Crusades

[beorhthelm]

I didnt express an idea of what rights are, I explained what they are.

earlier you provided a partially incorrect definition. your explaination is an expression of your idea of rights, not an absolute truth.

I dont understand this sentence. This applys to all rights (beyond the right to life), but you cannot think of any rights that this applys to? Am I misreading this?

i meant i cant think of any that dont have a conflict. you want an example? other than those already suggesed how about liberty. i can not possibly have full unrestricted liberty without infringing in some way on someone elses liberty. i cant do anything that infringes on your liberty, which therefore restricts mine. or right to property, i cant have what you have, and vice versa. so on. there must be edges to the boundries of rights and freedoms, with different societies determining how hard or soft those edges are.

"the public can use the foot path as long as they do not make a nuisance of themselves" If the footpath is public then its not privately owned. A privately owned footpath can be opened up to the public, but this would be voluntary on the part of the property owner. Are you saying that a privately owned footpath can be opened up to the public against the wishes of the property owner?

well, yes. how come you dont understand this? my private land which i own has a public right of way. i still own it, but i have my freedom slightly restricted as i must observe and allow the right of way. such public rights of way are usually ancient. theres a whole bunch of conflicts in common law where the land owner has to allow certain rights to the public. recently there was the right to roam enacted, so people dont even have to stick to public footpaths in the countryside any more. which rights are greater than others? many different opinions on that, thats the point, they conflict.

you will no doubt put forward that liberty trumps all (then property). but as already pointed out i can not have unrestricted liberty without conflict with yours (especially with property). i want to access the firewood on your land. you want to travel across my land. you want to have an unrestricted view of the sea, but i want to build a new factory on the coast. Liberty is the *first* right to cause conflict. it is not as absolute as you think.

 

[Pevenseagull]

'Provoke debate' hmmm.

I'm just gonna get some pringles and pull up a chair.

hmmm indeed, pass me a 'Pringle' and please clarify where I stand as a gin drinker.

For a bonus point, is gin gluten free?

 

[dingodan]

i meant i cant think of any that dont have a conflict. you want an example? other than those already suggesed how about liberty. i can not possibly have full unrestricted liberty without infringing in some way on someone elses liberty. i cant do anything that infringes on your liberty, which therefore restricts mine. or right to property, i cant have what you have, and vice versa. so on. there must be edges to the boundries of rights and freedoms, with different societies determining how hard or soft those edges are.

You are arguing that your not being able to infringe my liberty is a restriction of your liberty? Thats stupid. Having unrestricted liberty does not mean you can do anything you like. It means you can do anything you like that does not infringe on someone elses liberty. You can smoke, drink, eat, say and be anything you want to. As long as it does not cause me harm or deprive me of my liberty. Having a right to your liberty means literally having a right to be free, not having a right to be free - to do whatever you want.

Same for property, you have a right to your property, but you dont have a right to my property.

The boundaries are simple.

You said: "i want to access the firewood on your land. you want to travel across my land. you want to have an unrestricted view of the sea, but i want to build a new factory on the coast."

Yes but you do not have a right to something just because you want it. If you think that liberty means taking what you want you are mistaken.

 

[El Presidente]

I know this will be a controversial question and one I have hesitated to ask but one i am genuinely interested in peoples opinions.......

When did this whole poppy issue become such a huge issue? When I left the UK most people wore poppies, some people didn't it didn't seem like such a big deal. But the last few years people seem up in arms about it, the football team must be allowed to wear a poppy, certain television presenters have been criticised for not wearing poppies. People are burning them.

Is it just my memory or has the whole thing taken on more significance over the last few years?

I do conceded that is may simply be that I wore my poppy and I went to the Burma Star ceremony with my granddad and didn't take any notice of the hoo haa that may have been happening at the time.

It all changed when Diana died and we became a nation of bedwetters.

Part of the issue is that we are currently fighting two wars, and therefore it seems the least you can do is acknowledge the bravery of the young who are fighting to preserve oil interests for America and a crusade against the Taliban, who are seen as the epitome of all that is bad about the Muslim faith (and let's face it they are a repugnant bunch).

It is also a function of having 24 hour news channels and the Internet. Anyone not wearing a poppy on TV stands out and is in danger of becoming the story, as channels struggle to fill their schedules.

Furthermore since the Northern Ireland peace deal was sorted, wearing a poppy is no longer seen as tacit support of the army occupation over there.

Having said all the above, there is still opposition and indifference from many sectors of society. If you manage to get on The Huddleboard, Celtic's version of NSC, they are hysterically anti the poppy. Very few of my students wear them too, although students are notoriously tight!

 

[hitony]

I know this will be a controversial question and one I have hesitated to ask but one i am genuinely interested in peoples opinions.......

When did this whole poppy issue become such a huge issue? When I left the UK most people wore poppies, some people didn't it didn't seem like such a big deal. But the last few years people seem up in arms about it, the football team must be allowed to wear a poppy, certain television presenters have been criticised for not wearing poppies. People are burning them.

Is it just my memory or has the whole thing taken on more significance over the last few years?

I do conceded that is may simply be that I wore my poppy and I went to the Burma Star ceremony with my granddad and didn't take any notice of the hoo haa that may have been happening at the time.

Why start a seperate thread about this subject when you have already said the same on here last night? not enough reaction maybe? I have responded on your thread you started this morning prior to seeing this.

 

[BadFish]

Why start a seperate thread about this subject when you have already said the same on here last night? not enough reaction maybe? I have responded on your thread you started this morning prior to seeing this.

Because i am genuinely interested in the answer but this thread seemed to be going off a different way and I thought my question might get lost. So I suppose 'not enough reaction yes' but not with the implication that I am deliberately trying to 'fish', 'wind up' or offend anyone.

 

[hitony]

Because i am genuinely interested in the answer but this thread seemed to be going off a different way and I thought my question might get lost. So I suppose 'not enough reaction yes' but not with the implication that I am deliberately trying to 'fish', 'wind up' or offend anyone.

Fair play

 

[beorhthelm]

You are arguing that your not being able to infringe my liberty is a restriction of your liberty? Thats stupid. Having unrestricted liberty does not mean you can do anything you like. It means you can do anything you like that does not infringe on someone elses liberty.
[...]
If you think that liberty means taking what you want you are mistaken.

seems you do understand it, so the earlier definition of free society "...a society where people shall have the right to exercise unlimited freedom in their own lives..." is incorrect isnt it? thats what i was getting at.

 

[The Merry Prankster]

It all changed when Diana died and we became a nation of bedwetters.

I shall steal that and pass it off as my own.

 

[Mutts Nuts]

This may provoke a discussion it may not, let's see.

Are the Muslims against Crusades and their anti British stance any worse/better than the BNP/EDL and their pro British stance? Just curious.

Muslims Christians and Jews are all living in the dark ages, Darwin proved there is no divine being, only the Americans and Arabs are still using religion as a means of control

 

[DerbyGull]

Muslims Christians and Jews are all living in the dark ages, Darwin proved there is no divine being, only the Americans and Arabs are still using religion as a means of control

 

[El Presidente]

Muslims Christians and Jews are all living in the dark ages, Darwin proved there is no divine being, only the Americans and Arabs are still using religion as a means of control

Gets ANOTHER pack of Pringles

 

[Mutts Nuts]

Gets ANOTHER pack of Pringles

....

 

[e77]

I find it interesting that people see racism as the main problem in society today when the distribution of wealth actually inspires more action.

The Iron Curtain came down because communism couldn't pay for itself. For all the fear of Radical Islam, the Arab Spring was inspired largely by economic woes. Not that I am comparing the Summer riots to either of these things, but they were white and black rioting together, not against each other (wrong though that was).

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Exactly, I heard a rumour that they were approached by a 73 year old woman in a burka who intimidated them, and they were forced to get a bit lairy.

rumours , too many for my liking.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Were did i say that there all as bad as each other the EDL are scum so are the MAC, tbh lock them all in a room with each other and leave them to it.

you didn't , how can the EDL be scum if their against scum in the form of MAC

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

It all changed when Diana died and we became a nation of bedwetters.

Part of the issue is that we are currently fighting two wars, and therefore it seems the least you can do is acknowledge the bravery of the young who are fighting to preserve oil interests for America and a crusade against the Taliban, who are seen as the epitome of all that is bad about the Muslim faith (and let's face it they are a repugnant bunch).

It is also a function of having 24 hour news channels and the Internet. Anyone not wearing a poppy on TV stands out and is in danger of becoming the story, as channels struggle to fill their schedules.

Furthermore since the Northern Ireland peace deal was sorted, wearing a poppy is no longer seen as tacit support of the army occupation over there.

Having said all the above, there is still opposition and indifference from many sectors of society. If you manage to get on The Huddleboard, Celtic's version of NSC, they are hysterically anti the poppy. Very few of my students wear them too, although students are notoriously tight!

are they foreign students

 

[beorhthelm]

you didn't , how can the EDL be scum if their against scum in the form of MAC

because they both racists?

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

because they both racists?

so we're not allowed to stand up for ourselves in our own country , you're right let's let the muslims extremists have it all their own way, FFS what planet you on !!!the more they get away with the more they will demand, it's been going on for a while now , are you happy with that ?

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Perhaps the extremists from all sides keep themselves in check just by being there?