Muslims against Crusades

[dingodan]

Do you deny that conpiracy theory Youtube videos are your modus operandi on NSC? I seem to recall that you've been warned in the past about this. And yes, I stand by my comments about it being a conspiracy theorists wet dream (your link that is). I'm not alone in that view either. Much cleverer people than me have also called it such. viz. David Aaronovitch

I mention David Icke's website as I find it morbidly curious and I've seen more or less every conspiracy theory Youtube video you've ever posted appear on there at one time or other.

And if the video gets posted on bumticklers.com, does that make me a bum tickler?

As was pointed out earlier, something is not true because it is on Youtube. However the opposite is also true, something is not false because it is on Youtube either.

The trick is to assess all available evidence and exercise judgement.

However that can be hard work.

 

[BadFish]

See my response to this. Not intended as a joke at all. Dingo Dan seems to get all his best Youtube clips from that site or from fellow traveller's conspiracy forums.

....and after complaining that the discussion was being lost by this pointles argument, then getting involved in the argument and getting it back ontrack, you have derailed it once more to return to this argument.

 

[Joey Deacon's Disco Suit]

Their actions are incredibly offensive and solely designed to provoke a reaction.In a free society, being offensive is not a crime.

its clear that if it doesn't have terrorist links yet, it's only a matter of time before it would have.You are talking about acting based on what you think someone will do rather than what they have done. Pre-crime.

It's regrettable that personal freedoms were violated but for the greater good it was necessary."The greater good", historically, is probably the most dangerous mindset there has ever been.

Fair points. I've worded my arguments badly. I'll try again.

We don't live in a free society. We all subscribe to what Rousseau called the social contract. I can't do whatever I please because society will not let me do whatever I want. It lets me do most things but society and the Government we elect to manage that society has to decide what is best to create and maintain harmony. The MAC is by its own admission only there to disrupt this violently. Every day, we cede freedom in the pursuit of the greater good. This in itself isn't dangerous - what is, is accountability. I think the Government made the right call here to proscribe MAC. They haven't detained any of the MAC though and Choudhury is still free to walk the streets.

I will return to this but need to bath the kids.

 

[Joey Deacon's Disco Suit]

....and after complaining that the discussion was being lost by this pointles argument, then getting involved in the argument and getting it back ontrack, you have derailed it once more to return to this argument.

Eh?. I was just responding to your comment so it was you that 'returned' to the argument, surely?

 

[dingodan]

Fair points. I've worded my arguments badly. I'll try again.

We don't live in a free society. We all subscribe to what Rousseau called the social contract. I can't do whatever I please because society will not let me do whatever I want. It lets me do most things but society and the Government we elect to manage that society has to decide what is best to create and maintain harmony. The MAC is by its own admission only there to disrupt this violently. Every day, we cede freedom in the pursuit of the greater good. This in itself isn't dangerous - what is, is accountability. I think the Government made the right call here to proscribe MAC. They haven't detained any of the MAC though and Choudhury is still free to walk the streets.

I will return to this but need to bath the kids.

You have confused a free society (with the rule of law), with anarchy.

We do live in a free society, or so we are told. Frankly its quite sad that you say "we don't live in a free society" as though that is the way it is supposed to be.

 

[Joey Deacon's Disco Suit]

You have confused a free society (with the rule of law), with anarchy.

We do live in a free society, or so we are told. Frankly its quite sad that you say "we don't live in a free society" as though that is the way it is supposed to be.

au contraire. It saddens me too. I'm just not brave enough to declare unilateral independence from society.

 

[dingodan]

au contraire. It saddens me too. I'm just not brave enough to declare unilateral independence from society.

Saying we live in a free society is not declaring unilateral independence from society.

These definitions are how I have always understood a free society:

Individuals in a free society find it safe to be unpopular. This can be elaborated in terms of freedom of speech - if people have a right to express their views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm.

...a society where people shall have the right to exercise unlimited freedom in their own lives, freedom to live in whatever manner they choose, freedom to pursue their own goals, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal rights of others to do the same. Government's only role is to secure each individual's rights.

I have always thought that this country officially considered itself to be a free society, despite the evidence to the contrary.

 

[beorhthelm]

...a society where people shall have the right to exercise unlimited freedom in their own lives, freedom to live in whatever manner they choose, freedom to pursue their own goals, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal rights of others to do the same. Government's only role is to secure each individual's rights.

the first italics is simple enough, but whats the sorce of your quote so we can understand what background this assumes. it highlights the inherent conflict in a free society: how can you possibly enforce *all* freedoms? i own some land, you want to camp or travel over it, whoses freedom takes priority? as Joey DDS says, we have and accept a social contract that limits our freedom with in reason to give a framework so we dont have to deal with these conflicts every day. "Government's only role is to secure each individual's rights." is a potentially very large scoping role.

 

[dingodan]

the first italics is simple enough, but whats the sorce of your quote so we can understand what background this assumes. it highlights the inherent conflict in a free society: how can you possibly enforce *all* freedoms? i own some land, you want to camp or travel over it, whoses freedom takes priority? as Joey DDS says, we have and accept a social contract that limits our freedom with in reason to give a framework so we dont have to deal with these conflicts every day. "Government's only role is to secure each individual's rights." is a potentially very large scoping role.

Its not large in scope though is it. It is saying:

"Government's only role is to secure each individual's rights"...(to live as they wish, express themselves freely, and pursue their own goals)..."so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal rights of others to do the same."

If you own the land then you have private property rights, which are protected by law. If I use your land, I am interfering with your right to your land. I am not free to use your land, I am free to (if I work to achieve it) obtain my own land to use, if I so choose.

 

[wellquickwoody]

So the BBC reported that 170 arrested were arrested in London, without any mention of the reason why.

C'mon Derbygull, explain your charge of institutional racism by the English.

Sent from my wardrobe whilst watching Susannah Reid and Sian Williams enjoy a clam sandwich.

 

[BadFish]

So the BBC reported that 170 arrested were arrested in London, without any mention of the reason why.

C'mon Derbygull, explain your charge of institutional racism by the English.


Sent from my wardrobe whilst watching Susannah Reid and Sian Williams enjoy a clam sandwich.

If you want to find institutional racism you generally can.

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/u...s_a_review.pdf

 

[dingodan]

On racism, this links in with liberty too. There is often talk of minority rights, (and also gay rights, or womens rights etc). But you dont have rights because you are black, or gay, or a woman. You have your rights as a human being and as an individual, so everyone should be treated the same way.

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals...the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist...We should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty."

Ron Paul, April 18, 2007.

 

[wellquickwoody]

If you want to find institutional racism you generally can.

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/u...s_a_review.pdf

And how do you excuse the 170 arrests? Nearly all of whom will be released without charge.

Sent from my wardrobe whilst watching Susannah Reid and Sian Williams enjoy a clam sandwich.

 

[beorhthelm]

If you own the land then you have private property rights, which are protected by law. If I use your land, I am interfering with your right to your land. I am not free to use your land...

so you dont have a right to travel freely through out the land? what if the nearest running water supply to your home is on my land, you have no right to access this? some would say yes, others would object here and say there must be a limit or shared rights, either way weakening my rights as the land owner.

i think you need to review the source of your definition of free society and confirm if it is valid or accurate. its certainly idealistic. freedom in general and of society more so is complex in the detailed analysis.

 

[BadFish]

And how do you excuse the 170 arrests? Nearly all of whom will be released without charge.

Sent from my wardrobe whilst watching Susannah Reid and Sian Williams enjoy a clam sandwich.

I don't excuse those arrests it sounds like it was the police going over the top. But then again their may have been a good reasons for it.

Here is what a Palace fan on the David Icke forum had to say.

meh lets be realistic, if it had kicked off, the police would have been blamed for "letting it happen" and plenty of people here would be moaning about that. I agree that it is a bad sign, and the point of freedom of speech, is that you are supposed to accept their right to say something, whether or not you agree with it, but i would see this being a lose - lose political decision by senior officers.
As for rubber bullets, and tear gas, i couldn't see them being used by the current police force. The senior officer who permits the use of such weapons on a protest, will receive a shit storm and get crucified by the media. These weapons have always been at the disposal by the police, even around the time of the broad water farm riots in the 80's, but the top brass didn't have the bottle to use them.

My point is though, that this case not having institutional racism doesn't either prove or disprove Derbygulls point that institutional racism exists.

 

[dingodan]

so you dont have a right to travel freely through out the land? what if the nearest running water supply to your home is on my land, you have no right to access this? some would say yes, others would object here and say there must be a limit or shared rights, either way weakening my rights as the land owner.

i think you need to review the source of your definition of free society and confirm if it is valid or accurate. its certainly idealistic. freedom in general and of society more so is complex in the detailed analysis.

You have come up with some crazy outlandish situation in which you imply that I might need to infringe upon your private property rights in order to survive. If your land is the only realistic place I can get any water, I would ask you and hopefully you would not let me die of thirst. But no, I don't have any right to use your land, if it is your land, and you deny me access.

But in all seriousness your post is offering an unrealistic set of circumstances. And your rights cant be "weakened". They are protected or they are enfringed.

There is a case that is often made that all the land belongs to all of us, and I sympathise with this view. But going back to what liberty is, your example is kind of implying that I have a "right" to water that you would somehow be denying by standing on your right to your property. The fact is I do not have a "right" to water. Water is a product. If I claimed to have a "right" to water, and that I was standing on this "right" when I steal your water, I would be infringing your right to your property.

What I think you are really asking is what about when a right can only be satisfied by the denial of someone elses right. But there are no rights like this. This comes down to a misunderstanding of what rights are. You do not have a "right" to products or services, and this includes food, water, healthcare and all the things that we all want everyone to have. There is nothing wrong with wanting everyone to have these things, but they are not rights.

We have a right to our life, our liberty and our property. If I tell you, you must give me the food you have because I have none, or you must provide me with water, or medical services, I would not be exercising my liberty, I would be denying you your liberty, your right to your property or your labour.

 

[BadFish]

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.

 

[BadFish]

so you dont have a right to travel freely through out the land? what if the nearest running water supply to your home is on my land, you have no right to access this? some would say yes, others would object here and say there must be a limit or shared rights, either way weakening my rights as the land owner.

i think you need to review the source of your definition of free society and confirm if it is valid or accurate. its certainly idealistic. freedom in general and of society more so is complex in the detailed analysis.

Happens in the farming community in Australia often where irrigation water and access are concerned. The person is granted and easement to access the water.

 

[beorhthelm]

You have come up with some crazy outlandish situation in which you imply that I might need to infringe upon your private property rights in order to survive.

far from crazy its the sort of scenario that would have been common place in an older age (and probably still holds in some parts of the world). aside from the survival aspect its something quite relevent today. a right of way, ie public footpath, might well traverse a land owners property and both rights are observed.

What I think you are really asking is what about when a right can only be satisfied by the denial of someone elses right. But there are no rights like this. This comes down to a misunderstanding of what rights are.

no, i am highlighting the inherent conflict of rights. beyond the right to life, all rights and freedoms for an individual conflict with another individuals rights and freedoms in some way (at least, i cant think of any). as a society we accept this conflict of interest by allowing some rights and freedoms to be overrulled within boundries - the public can use the foot path as long as they do not make a nuisance of themselves. there is indeed a misunderstanding, you have an idea of rights that the majority of society dont accept.

(and as an aside, that quote from earlier is one bloggers personal definition)

 

[dingodan]

far from crazy its the sort of scenario that would have been common place in an older age (and probably still holds in some parts of the world). aside from the survival aspect its something quite relevent today. a right of way, ie public footpath, might well traverse a land owners property and both rights are observed.



no, i am highlighting the inherent conflict of rights. beyond the right to life, all rights and freedoms for an individual conflict with another individuals rights and freedoms in some way (at least, i cant think of any). as a society we accept this conflict of interest by allowing some rights and freedoms to be overrulled within boundries - the public can use the foot path as long as they do not make a nuisance of themselves. there is indeed a misunderstanding, you have an idea of rights that the majority of society dont accept.

(and as an aside, that quote from earlier is one bloggers personal definition)

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

"beyond the right to life, all rights and freedoms for an individual conflict with another individuals rights and freedoms in some way (at least, i cant think of any)."

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?

Can you give an example of a right a person has that will likely conflict with another persons rights?

"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?

Yes peoples interests frequently conflict. But their rights do not.