|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On March 23 2017 05:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 05:51 SoSexy wrote:
I ask for harsher measures on watch list individuals. You want me to write the procedure that police should use point by point? I do not know that - but I know that my request is far from irrational, due to the age we live in. Okay, let's scrap the police procedure. We don't need to specifically name the law he was breaking by handing out leaflets and we can probably not worry about convicting him, we'll just have a secret trial without a jury. I won't ask you to come up with the specifics for that, it'd obviously be too much to ask for you to explain which law he had actually broken. How is it we stop the leaflet guy from ever getting in a position that could harm another person? Never driving a car. Never in a position to push someone into traffic. Never working in a kitchen. Never allowed near sharp objects. Or blunt objects for that matter. Can you at least give us an idea of that? Once we've established that the police are allowed to stop these people, how are we stopping them?
Imprisoning if national, expulsion if not. Special prisons in remote areas should work well. Ideology is like mental illness, some cases are admittable uncurable.
|
United States43956 Posts
On March 23 2017 06:33 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 05:57 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 05:51 SoSexy wrote:
I ask for harsher measures on watch list individuals. You want me to write the procedure that police should use point by point? I do not know that - but I know that my request is far from irrational, due to the age we live in. Okay, let's scrap the police procedure. We don't need to specifically name the law he was breaking by handing out leaflets and we can probably not worry about convicting him, we'll just have a secret trial without a jury. I won't ask you to come up with the specifics for that, it'd obviously be too much to ask for you to explain which law he had actually broken. How is it we stop the leaflet guy from ever getting in a position that could harm another person? Never driving a car. Never in a position to push someone into traffic. Never working in a kitchen. Never allowed near sharp objects. Or blunt objects for that matter. Can you at least give us an idea of that? Once we've established that the police are allowed to stop these people, how are we stopping them? Imprisoning if national, expulsion if not. Special prisons in remote areas should work well.
Well, life imprisonment for leaflets would stop them from committing both terror attacks and leaflet campaigns. But what if they choose to stop leaflets and just do the terror attacks? We'd need to make a few more things illegal too.
|
On March 23 2017 06:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 06:33 SoSexy wrote:On March 23 2017 05:57 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 05:51 SoSexy wrote:
I ask for harsher measures on watch list individuals. You want me to write the procedure that police should use point by point? I do not know that - but I know that my request is far from irrational, due to the age we live in. Okay, let's scrap the police procedure. We don't need to specifically name the law he was breaking by handing out leaflets and we can probably not worry about convicting him, we'll just have a secret trial without a jury. I won't ask you to come up with the specifics for that, it'd obviously be too much to ask for you to explain which law he had actually broken. How is it we stop the leaflet guy from ever getting in a position that could harm another person? Never driving a car. Never in a position to push someone into traffic. Never working in a kitchen. Never allowed near sharp objects. Or blunt objects for that matter. Can you at least give us an idea of that? Once we've established that the police are allowed to stop these people, how are we stopping them? Imprisoning if national, expulsion if not. Special prisons in remote areas should work well. Well, life imprisonment for leaflets would stop them from committing both terror attacks and leaflet campaigns. But what if they choose to stop leaflets and just do the terror attacks? We'd need to make a few more things illegal too.
No, that's a slippery slope. The system is already there - it just needs to be fine tuned and it would work fine if people stopped underestimating the problem. If you are interested in the psychology of terrorists, check out Majid Nawaz - he was a terrorist in Egypt and now runs a foundation against islamic extremism.
|
On March 23 2017 06:41 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 06:37 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 06:33 SoSexy wrote:On March 23 2017 05:57 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 05:51 SoSexy wrote:
I ask for harsher measures on watch list individuals. You want me to write the procedure that police should use point by point? I do not know that - but I know that my request is far from irrational, due to the age we live in. Okay, let's scrap the police procedure. We don't need to specifically name the law he was breaking by handing out leaflets and we can probably not worry about convicting him, we'll just have a secret trial without a jury. I won't ask you to come up with the specifics for that, it'd obviously be too much to ask for you to explain which law he had actually broken. How is it we stop the leaflet guy from ever getting in a position that could harm another person? Never driving a car. Never in a position to push someone into traffic. Never working in a kitchen. Never allowed near sharp objects. Or blunt objects for that matter. Can you at least give us an idea of that? Once we've established that the police are allowed to stop these people, how are we stopping them? Imprisoning if national, expulsion if not. Special prisons in remote areas should work well. Well, life imprisonment for leaflets would stop them from committing both terror attacks and leaflet campaigns. But what if they choose to stop leaflets and just do the terror attacks? We'd need to make a few more things illegal too. No, that's a slippery slope. The system is already there - it just needs to be fine tuned and it would work fine if people stopped underestimating the problem. If you are interested in the psychology of terrorists, check out Majid Nawaz - he was a terrorist in Egypt and now runs a foundation against islamic extremism.
which system? The terrorist-list system?
Are you really advocating that everyone who's on such a list should be sentenced for a life in prison?
|
United States43956 Posts
On March 23 2017 06:41 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 06:37 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 06:33 SoSexy wrote:On March 23 2017 05:57 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 05:51 SoSexy wrote:
I ask for harsher measures on watch list individuals. You want me to write the procedure that police should use point by point? I do not know that - but I know that my request is far from irrational, due to the age we live in. Okay, let's scrap the police procedure. We don't need to specifically name the law he was breaking by handing out leaflets and we can probably not worry about convicting him, we'll just have a secret trial without a jury. I won't ask you to come up with the specifics for that, it'd obviously be too much to ask for you to explain which law he had actually broken. How is it we stop the leaflet guy from ever getting in a position that could harm another person? Never driving a car. Never in a position to push someone into traffic. Never working in a kitchen. Never allowed near sharp objects. Or blunt objects for that matter. Can you at least give us an idea of that? Once we've established that the police are allowed to stop these people, how are we stopping them? Imprisoning if national, expulsion if not. Special prisons in remote areas should work well. Well, life imprisonment for leaflets would stop them from committing both terror attacks and leaflet campaigns. But what if they choose to stop leaflets and just do the terror attacks? We'd need to make a few more things illegal too. No, that's a slippery slope. The system is already there - it just needs to be fine tuned and it would work fine if people stopped underestimating the problem. If you are interested in the psychology of terrorists, check out Majid Nawaz - he was a terrorist in Egypt and now runs a foundation against islamic extremism.
So, if I'm understanding you correctly, your response to this attack is to argue that the British government should introduce new laws to make the distribution of anti-government leaflets punishable by lifetime imprisonment without appeal in the hope that potential terrorists will make the mistake of spreading leaflets before they attack, thus allowing them to be stopped by this new law. You acknowledge the risk that a potential terrorist might do something other than distribute leaflets before their attack but think that a life sentence for leaflets, and only leaflets, is appropriate because you don't want to stray too far down the slippery slope.
That about right?
|
United States43956 Posts
On March 23 2017 06:43 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 06:41 SoSexy wrote:On March 23 2017 06:37 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 06:33 SoSexy wrote:On March 23 2017 05:57 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 05:51 SoSexy wrote:
I ask for harsher measures on watch list individuals. You want me to write the procedure that police should use point by point? I do not know that - but I know that my request is far from irrational, due to the age we live in. Okay, let's scrap the police procedure. We don't need to specifically name the law he was breaking by handing out leaflets and we can probably not worry about convicting him, we'll just have a secret trial without a jury. I won't ask you to come up with the specifics for that, it'd obviously be too much to ask for you to explain which law he had actually broken. How is it we stop the leaflet guy from ever getting in a position that could harm another person? Never driving a car. Never in a position to push someone into traffic. Never working in a kitchen. Never allowed near sharp objects. Or blunt objects for that matter. Can you at least give us an idea of that? Once we've established that the police are allowed to stop these people, how are we stopping them? Imprisoning if national, expulsion if not. Special prisons in remote areas should work well. Well, life imprisonment for leaflets would stop them from committing both terror attacks and leaflet campaigns. But what if they choose to stop leaflets and just do the terror attacks? We'd need to make a few more things illegal too. No, that's a slippery slope. The system is already there - it just needs to be fine tuned and it would work fine if people stopped underestimating the problem. If you are interested in the psychology of terrorists, check out Majid Nawaz - he was a terrorist in Egypt and now runs a foundation against islamic extremism. which system? The terrorist-list system? Are you really advocating that everyone who's on such a list should be sentenced for a life in prison?
No, you misunderstand, that'd be a slippery slope. Only if they leaflet.
|
On March 23 2017 06:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 06:41 SoSexy wrote:On March 23 2017 06:37 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 06:33 SoSexy wrote:On March 23 2017 05:57 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 05:51 SoSexy wrote:
I ask for harsher measures on watch list individuals. You want me to write the procedure that police should use point by point? I do not know that - but I know that my request is far from irrational, due to the age we live in. Okay, let's scrap the police procedure. We don't need to specifically name the law he was breaking by handing out leaflets and we can probably not worry about convicting him, we'll just have a secret trial without a jury. I won't ask you to come up with the specifics for that, it'd obviously be too much to ask for you to explain which law he had actually broken. How is it we stop the leaflet guy from ever getting in a position that could harm another person? Never driving a car. Never in a position to push someone into traffic. Never working in a kitchen. Never allowed near sharp objects. Or blunt objects for that matter. Can you at least give us an idea of that? Once we've established that the police are allowed to stop these people, how are we stopping them? Imprisoning if national, expulsion if not. Special prisons in remote areas should work well. Well, life imprisonment for leaflets would stop them from committing both terror attacks and leaflet campaigns. But what if they choose to stop leaflets and just do the terror attacks? We'd need to make a few more things illegal too. No, that's a slippery slope. The system is already there - it just needs to be fine tuned and it would work fine if people stopped underestimating the problem. If you are interested in the psychology of terrorists, check out Majid Nawaz - he was a terrorist in Egypt and now runs a foundation against islamic extremism. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, your response to this attack is to argue that the British government should introduce new laws to make the distribution of anti-government leaflets punishable by lifetime imprisonment without appeal in the hope that potential terrorists will make the mistake of spreading leaflets before they attack, thus allowing them to be stopped by this new law. You acknowledge the risk that a potential terrorist might do something other than distribute leaflets before their attack but think that a life sentence for leaflets, and only leaflets, is appropriate because you don't want to stray too far down the slippery slope. That about right?
Not sure about right, but if the other option is doing nothing, sign me up for it.
|
United States43956 Posts
On March 23 2017 06:50 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 06:47 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 06:41 SoSexy wrote:On March 23 2017 06:37 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 06:33 SoSexy wrote:On March 23 2017 05:57 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 05:51 SoSexy wrote:
I ask for harsher measures on watch list individuals. You want me to write the procedure that police should use point by point? I do not know that - but I know that my request is far from irrational, due to the age we live in. Okay, let's scrap the police procedure. We don't need to specifically name the law he was breaking by handing out leaflets and we can probably not worry about convicting him, we'll just have a secret trial without a jury. I won't ask you to come up with the specifics for that, it'd obviously be too much to ask for you to explain which law he had actually broken. How is it we stop the leaflet guy from ever getting in a position that could harm another person? Never driving a car. Never in a position to push someone into traffic. Never working in a kitchen. Never allowed near sharp objects. Or blunt objects for that matter. Can you at least give us an idea of that? Once we've established that the police are allowed to stop these people, how are we stopping them? Imprisoning if national, expulsion if not. Special prisons in remote areas should work well. Well, life imprisonment for leaflets would stop them from committing both terror attacks and leaflet campaigns. But what if they choose to stop leaflets and just do the terror attacks? We'd need to make a few more things illegal too. No, that's a slippery slope. The system is already there - it just needs to be fine tuned and it would work fine if people stopped underestimating the problem. If you are interested in the psychology of terrorists, check out Majid Nawaz - he was a terrorist in Egypt and now runs a foundation against islamic extremism. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, your response to this attack is to argue that the British government should introduce new laws to make the distribution of anti-government leaflets punishable by lifetime imprisonment without appeal in the hope that potential terrorists will make the mistake of spreading leaflets before they attack, thus allowing them to be stopped by this new law. You acknowledge the risk that a potential terrorist might do something other than distribute leaflets before their attack but think that a life sentence for leaflets, and only leaflets, is appropriate because you don't want to stray too far down the slippery slope. That about right? Not sure about right, but if the option is doing nothing, sign me up for it.
So, you don't think your policy of life imprisonment for distributing leaflets is necessarily right but you'd rather enforce it anyway because you don't want to do nothing?
There you have it folks. The argument for and against free speech.
|
You should learn how to read between lines.
|
On March 23 2017 06:50 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 06:47 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 06:41 SoSexy wrote:On March 23 2017 06:37 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 06:33 SoSexy wrote:On March 23 2017 05:57 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 05:51 SoSexy wrote:
I ask for harsher measures on watch list individuals. You want me to write the procedure that police should use point by point? I do not know that - but I know that my request is far from irrational, due to the age we live in. Okay, let's scrap the police procedure. We don't need to specifically name the law he was breaking by handing out leaflets and we can probably not worry about convicting him, we'll just have a secret trial without a jury. I won't ask you to come up with the specifics for that, it'd obviously be too much to ask for you to explain which law he had actually broken. How is it we stop the leaflet guy from ever getting in a position that could harm another person? Never driving a car. Never in a position to push someone into traffic. Never working in a kitchen. Never allowed near sharp objects. Or blunt objects for that matter. Can you at least give us an idea of that? Once we've established that the police are allowed to stop these people, how are we stopping them? Imprisoning if national, expulsion if not. Special prisons in remote areas should work well. Well, life imprisonment for leaflets would stop them from committing both terror attacks and leaflet campaigns. But what if they choose to stop leaflets and just do the terror attacks? We'd need to make a few more things illegal too. No, that's a slippery slope. The system is already there - it just needs to be fine tuned and it would work fine if people stopped underestimating the problem. If you are interested in the psychology of terrorists, check out Majid Nawaz - he was a terrorist in Egypt and now runs a foundation against islamic extremism. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, your response to this attack is to argue that the British government should introduce new laws to make the distribution of anti-government leaflets punishable by lifetime imprisonment without appeal in the hope that potential terrorists will make the mistake of spreading leaflets before they attack, thus allowing them to be stopped by this new law. You acknowledge the risk that a potential terrorist might do something other than distribute leaflets before their attack but think that a life sentence for leaflets, and only leaflets, is appropriate because you don't want to stray too far down the slippery slope. That about right? Not sure about right, but if the option is doing nothing, sign me up for it.
"The other option is doing nothing, and everything is so horrible, so lets just do anything, nothing could be worse than this!"
Do you even think before you post? Seriously? You are so scared of a 1 in 10 million chance of being a victim in a terrorist attack that you are willing to give up essential democratic liberties? Basic stuff like "not being randomly imprisoned for life because you looked at some government dude funny"? You are really willing to give that up?
You need to get some perspective. Stuff can be a lot worse. Governments which disappear random people for secret reasons are NOT fun to live in. I just can't believe that you would actually say that. It is insane.
The problem here is that you just think rules apply only to other people. The government will only imprison bad evil islamists, not good people like you! And if there is even a suspicion of someone being a bad evil islamist, that probably means that they are. But it is not only "the government" that you give that power to. It is people. So what if your ex-wife decides that she would rather have you locked up in a secret prison? And she just happens to be in a position to decide who is a bad evil islamist? Or your neighbor was a bad evil islamist, but you didn't denounce him? You are probably a bad evil islamist too. Or what if you voted for the wrong person at the last election? You are probably a bad evil islamist. Better lock you up. Or you didn't mention that your neighbor voted for the wrong person last time? Probably also a bad evil islamist.
If you think the government locking people in random secret prisons is a good idea, take a look at basically any dictatorship ever. It is not a fun system to live under.
I am honestly amazed that there are people who don't grasp that.
|
I think he's doing this on purpose
|
I'm trying to bring other perspectives into these threads.
|
Any time someone want to impose new rules or harsher laws to combat the threat of terrorism, they should take a moment and think "Is this something the US/Bush would have done right after 9/11 and thought it was a great idea?" If the answer is "yes", they should reconsider their plan.
And if the answer is "no, not even Bush would have tried this," it is a terrible idea.
|
United States43956 Posts
On March 23 2017 07:01 SoSexy wrote:
You should learn how to read between lines.
You should learn the value of rights that form the heart of any civilized society. You're a totalitarian. And I'm not saying that as hyperbole, I'm saying that because you think the government should make a list whenever they add a name to that list the person should disappear.
|
We could move the discussion to more practical ideas though. Blocking foreign funding for religious institutions, proper protections for children being indoctrinated by religious institutions, measures to combat the 'communitarianism' the French love to talk about. Isolation of communities/lack of integration undermines free speech because people are only exposed to similar points of view, often propaganda.
|
Much of the discussion about terrorism is about stopping the terrorist themselves. Little is focused on stopping the radicalization of people, which is something that can be combated. There are a lot of similarities between how intelligence agencies recruit people to spy on their own country and how terrorist are recruited. And all of our nations got pretty good at cracking down on spying over the year. The same lessons can be applied to terrorist recruiting.
|
On March 23 2017 06:50 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 06:47 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 06:41 SoSexy wrote:On March 23 2017 06:37 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 06:33 SoSexy wrote:On March 23 2017 05:57 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 05:51 SoSexy wrote:
I ask for harsher measures on watch list individuals. You want me to write the procedure that police should use point by point? I do not know that - but I know that my request is far from irrational, due to the age we live in. Okay, let's scrap the police procedure. We don't need to specifically name the law he was breaking by handing out leaflets and we can probably not worry about convicting him, we'll just have a secret trial without a jury. I won't ask you to come up with the specifics for that, it'd obviously be too much to ask for you to explain which law he had actually broken. How is it we stop the leaflet guy from ever getting in a position that could harm another person? Never driving a car. Never in a position to push someone into traffic. Never working in a kitchen. Never allowed near sharp objects. Or blunt objects for that matter. Can you at least give us an idea of that? Once we've established that the police are allowed to stop these people, how are we stopping them? Imprisoning if national, expulsion if not. Special prisons in remote areas should work well. Well, life imprisonment for leaflets would stop them from committing both terror attacks and leaflet campaigns. But what if they choose to stop leaflets and just do the terror attacks? We'd need to make a few more things illegal too. No, that's a slippery slope. The system is already there - it just needs to be fine tuned and it would work fine if people stopped underestimating the problem. If you are interested in the psychology of terrorists, check out Majid Nawaz - he was a terrorist in Egypt and now runs a foundation against islamic extremism. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, your response to this attack is to argue that the British government should introduce new laws to make the distribution of anti-government leaflets punishable by lifetime imprisonment without appeal in the hope that potential terrorists will make the mistake of spreading leaflets before they attack, thus allowing them to be stopped by this new law. You acknowledge the risk that a potential terrorist might do something other than distribute leaflets before their attack but think that a life sentence for leaflets, and only leaflets, is appropriate because you don't want to stray too far down the slippery slope. That about right? Not sure about right, but if the other option is doing nothing, sign me up for it. WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK?
So rarely does anybody agree that a deranged parody is an accurate summation of their view, that the individual in question must be utterly deranged. Sosexy literally agrees that the government of UK should have the power to imprison anybody it discovers as contrary to its own views. So perhaps 40% of Northern Ireland should be imprisoned forever. Or anybody who didn't vote Conservative. To believe that the entire democratic institution should just disappear because someone crashed a car and stabbed someone. At least know we know sosexy's viewpoint and his own lack of worth.
|
Have there been any other terrorist attacks in Britain since the current refugee wave? I certainly could name a few other attacks but they mostly don't seem to be in the past two years...
|
I didn't say that, dangermouse, but if you like to portray me this way, go on.
|
I think (although its obviously quite bad timing to say this) we need to keep things in perspective SoSexy. This attack caused 5 deaths. Its horrible and brutal, but to give up so much freedom and to hand so much power to the security services over just 5 deaths is a massive overreaction in my opinion.
Better invest all that money into mental health, it would save more lives and we wouldn't have to all suffer and give up our rights permanently because of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
