Support for all my British friends

[KipIngram]

 

Then the terrorists have won the battle for your heart. It's exactly what they want.

 

 

 

A related general question i've had for a while: why are right wing governments - which profess to want to minimise the role of government - the quickest to want to control the flow of information and data? I am just imagining it?

 

I don't think you are imagining it. I believe it stems from their desire to enforce "morality." Did you notice in May's speech where she talked about regulating the internet she couldn't get through the speech without mentioning pornography? The right talks about terrorism as the "motivation" for this, but they have a laundry list of things they want to eliminate in the name of having a "moral society."

[iNow]

Textbook example of Orwellian doublethink

[Delta1212]

The thing I find most bizarre, and this is more of a US thing than a UK thing for obvious reasons, is the number of people who would eagerly give up innumerable rights and throw money at the government in the name of protecting them from terrorism but who, at the suggestion that maybe it would be a good idea to give the government some money and authority to deal with something orders of magnitude more likely to actually kill them like, say, heart disease, suddenly start screaming about tyranny.

Edited June 7, 2017 by Delta1212

[KipIngram]

The thing I find most bizarre, and this is more of a US thing than a UK thing for obvious reasons, is the number of people who would eagerly give up innumerable rights and throw money at the government in the name of protecting them from terrorism but who, at the suggestion that maybe it would be a good idea to give the government some money and authority to deal with something orders of magnitude more likely to actually kill them like, say, heart disease, suddenly start screaming about tyranny.

 

Yes, that is absolutely a baffling sort of behavior.

[Phi for All]

The thing I find most bizarre, and this is more of a US thing than a UK thing for obvious reasons, is the number of people who would eagerly give up innumerable rights and throw money at the government in the name of protecting them from terrorism but who, at the suggestion that maybe it would be a good idea to give the government some money and authority to deal with something orders of magnitude more likely to actually kill them like, say, heart disease, suddenly start screaming about tyranny.

 

It seems manipulated, doesn't it? You need some powerful crazy spin to keep the flow of the heart disease economy going.

[Lord Antares]

^ What rights are you willing to give up over an intangible fear?

 

Intangible fear? Intangible how? The rates of terrorism happening are alarming and give no indication of fading. You do realize nothing of the like has been happening until the immigrants came in, a handful of which were terrorists. A handful, but a threat nonetheless.

 

You guys seem to value human life less than some internet freedoms. I don't know what exactly is being restricted, but I heard something about internet surveillance or something of the like.

I support SOMETHING being done about it, which is more than is being done right now. Right now, absolutely nothing is being done to combat terrorism.

 

''I don't mind people dying at all, but heck, those bastards can't take my browsing rights!''

[dimreepr]

 

Intangible fear? Intangible how?

 

Has terrorism ever directly touched you (intangible)?

 

If so you're in a very very very small minority but that also means it's even less probable to touch you again.

 

Fear is a mind killer and only useful if you're directly threatened/attacked.

Edited June 7, 2017 by dimreepr

[Prometheus]

You do realize nothing of the like has been happening until the immigrants came in, a handful of which were terrorists. A handful, but a threat nonetheless.

 

That's demonstrably false. It really is the perception of terrorism rather than the reality that is motivating such outcries.

 

The general trend over that time frame is that things are getting better. Of course, that doesn't mean there isn't a problem, but not enough of a problem to start curtailing rights and freedoms, or any other sort of knee-jerk reactions. Doing something just to be seen to do something is a stupid reason to act.

 

And don't assume that just because people are not willing to give up rights and freedoms that they do not value life. Each person will have their idea of how much freedom they are willing to purchase with their security: in Europe we have traditionally been willing to pay a heavy price.

[KipIngram]

Doing something just to be seen to do something is a stupid reason to act.

 

And yet it happens very very often. If you think about it, being seen as doing something does, in fact, help politicians succeed. The blame is on us (the voters) for inadequately kicking the tires of the things that are so done before giving the person "credit" for having "done something."

 

So it's "stupid" in the big, rational picture, but it's not stupid at all if it results in something the politician wants (like re-election).

[dimreepr]

 

Intangible fear? Intangible how? The rates of terrorism happening are alarming and give no indication of fading. You do realize nothing of the like has been happening until the immigrants came in, a handful of which were terrorists. A handful, but a threat nonetheless.

 

You guys seem to value human life less than some internet freedoms. I don't know what exactly is being restricted, but I heard something about internet surveillance or something of the like.

I support SOMETHING being done about it, which is more than is being done right now. Right now, absolutely nothing is being done to combat terrorism.

 

''I don't mind people dying at all, but heck, those bastards can't take my browsing rights!''

 

That doesn't answer my question though, what right's are you willing to give up to protect you from something that's less likely to kill you than a domestic accident?

Edited June 7, 2017 by dimreepr

[Lord Antares]

 

That's demonstrably false.

 

No, it isn't. The ''ever'' part of my statement is false, but there's clearly an exponential rise in terrorism since the beginning of the century, with the exception of 2004. So there is a problem.

 

 

 

Of course, that doesn't mean there isn't a problem, but not enough of a problem to start curtailing rights and freedoms, or any other sort of knee-jerk reactions.

 

I disagree. There are limits. Small, barely relevant rights are worth compensating in turn for saving human lives.

 

 

 

Has terrorism ever directly touched you (intangible)?

 

If so you're in a very very very small minority but that also means it's even less probable to touch you again.

 

Fear is a mind killer and only useful if you're directly threatened/attacked.

 

Have you ever been killed by a landmine?

 

Neither has the vast majority of humans. That means that it's not a problem and should never be solved, right? As long as half the human population isn't dying, it shouldn't be looked into.

Impeccable logic.

 

Your point seems to be that I should worry about terrorism only after I've been killed.

[dimreepr]

Your point seems to be that I should worry about terrorism only after I've been killed.

 

Not sure how you managed this twisted logic from my posts, nevertheless my question remains unanswered.

[Lord Antares]

That seems to be the central point of your post.

 

 

That doesn't answer my question though, what right's are you willing to give up to protect you from something that's less likely to kill you than a domestic accident?

 

I don't know. Not many, but some lesser ones are OK. As I said, I don't know which rights exactly are in question, but I support the notion that some barely relevant ones could be sacrificed to save actual human lives. I don't understand why this is so controversial to all of you.

[dimreepr]

Neither has the vast majority of humans. That means that it's not a problem and should never be solved, right? As long as half the human population isn't dying, it shouldn't be looked into.

Impeccable logic.

 

When have I suggested we shouldn't address the problem?

 

I'm just not willing to give up my rights to do so.

That seems to be the central point of your post.

 

 

Really, please elaborate.

[Prometheus]

 

No, it isn't. The ''ever'' part of my statement is false, but there's clearly an exponential rise in terrorism since the beginning of the century, with the exception of 2004. So there is a problem.

 

Are you looking at the same graph as me? This one:

 

 

There's been an exponential drop in terrorism related deaths, with the exception of 2004, and 2015.

 

But i agree there is still a problem. That's why i said 'that doesn't mean there isn't a problem'. There is now a rise, against a backdrop of a decline. No one is arguing that we should do nothing, i am arguing that the threat is not yet nearly sufficient for us to start curtailing any freedoms, no matter how trivial you may deem them.

 

 

I disagree. There are limits. Small, barely relevant rights are worth compensating in turn for saving human lives.

 

I agree there are limits. But you've already said you don't know what measures have been proposed yet you know those limits have been crossed?

 

No one actually knows because May hasn't actually made any new commitments, but she has said in the past that the government should have access to people's phone and text records. That would be too much by my limits - i'm willing to take the risk (i live in London). But everyone will have their own limits: no one is right or wrong about how much freedoms should cost.

 

There are about as many bee and wasp related deaths as terror related deaths in recent years. If it not time to be hysterical about bees, then it is not time to get hysterical about terrorism.

 

We've been through it in the UK with the IRA, we'll get through this too.

[MigL]

I was thinking more along the lines of seatbelts...

Why should the government take away my right NOT to wear a seatbelt, if I've never been killed in an automobile accident ?

 

That aside, I have to disagree with you.

While you're probably just thinking of surveillance rights ( and you've done nothing wrong, so why worry ), once enacted, it becomes a very slippery slope.

Who knows what other rights may be ultimately taken from you as a way of demonstrating that something is being done.

 

There are things that can be done, that punish the perpetrators and enablers of such actions; Not ourselves !

[Lord Antares]

 

When have I suggested we shouldn't address the problem?

 

I'm just not willing to give up my rights to do so.

 

But which rights? If we don't know which rights in question, then you are, by default, rebelling against any sort of right-deduction in turn of people dying?

 

 

Really, please elaborate.

 

What? You said that I haven't been assaulted and therefore I shouldn't worry about it. You also said how little casualties there are, indicating that you are indifferent about solving the issue.

 

 

 

There's been an exponential drop in terrorism related deaths, with the exception of 2004, and 2015.

 

What do you mean with the exception of 2015.? The immigration started in 2015. when terrorism rose exponentially compared to the last 3 years. There's an updated graph below which shows that 2016. was similar to 2015. and 2017. is looking similar. These 3 years are the highest in death tolls by terrorism since 2004. and they are consecutive years, another very important thing. 2004 was an isolated year.

 

 

But you've already said you don't know what measures have been proposed yet you know those limits have been crossed?

 

I never said they've been crossed. I asked if you think they were.

 

 

There are about as many bee and wasp related deaths as terror related deaths in recent years. If it not time to be hysterical about bees, then it is not time to get hysterical about terrorism.

 

This is clearly a lot different. See my example about landmines. If not that many people are dying from mines, you think they should be left there forever? Only a handful get blown up by stepping on them, so who cares, right?

 

Also, rape has been increased since the immigration. But that's irrelevant too, right?

 

 

There are things that can be done, that punish the perpetrators and enablers of such actions; Not ourselves !

 

Such as?

[dimreepr]

You said that I haven't been assaulted and therefore I shouldn't worry about it.

 

You haven't stepped on a landmine either, are you worried about that?

 

You also said how little casualties there are, indicating that you are indifferent about solving the issue.

 

 

What??? Are you serious? I also said domestic accidents are more likely to kill you; does that indicate I want less regulation on unsafe heaters or boilers?

[Delta1212]

You seem to be stuck in a strange mindset of "The only way anyone can do anything about this problem is by taking away our rights."

[dimreepr]

You seem to be stuck in a strange mindset of "The only way anyone can do anything about this problem is by taking away our rights."

 

Unfortunately this mindset isn't so strange, however misguided.

[Delta1212]

 

Unfortunately this mindset isn't so strange, however misguided.

It's like insisting that the only way to increase the survival rate of people who require ambulance rides to the hospital is to remove the brakes from the ambulances so they can't slow down and cost people precious time.

 

And then accusing anyone who thinks this is a bad idea of not valuing human life.

[Lord Antares]

 

You haven't stepped on a landmine either, are you worried about that?

 

Landmines are very much being sorted out; that's my point. The terrorism issue has not been, so far.

 

 

What??? Are you serious? I also said domestic accidents are more likely to kill you; does that indicate I want less regulation on unsafe heaters or boilers?

 

The difference is that these sorts of things (like appliances) are constantly being worked on. You seem to be drawing unrelated parallels. Accidents and intentional murders are very much different things.

 

 

It's like insisting that the only way to increase the survival rate of people who require ambulance rides to the hospital is to remove the brakes from the ambulances so they can't slow down and cost people precious time.

 

Very bad analogy, as that would decrease the survival rate of people and not increase it. Give a better one.

[Delta1212]

I stand by my original analogy.

[dimreepr]

 

Landmines are very much being sorted out; that's my point.

 

 

Then your point has been addressed, many times.

 

The difference is that these sorts of things (like appliances) are constantly being worked on. You seem to be drawing unrelated parallels. Accidents and intentional murders are very much different things.

 

 

You seem to use the word 'seem' a lot, not much use when you're dead, despite you're intention.

[John Cuthber]

On the subject of rights

Mrs May wants to revoke the European Human rights convention.

On the other hand,
ISIS and others like them want to kill, torture, enslave and imprison people without any valid reason.
They want to strip you of privacy, and of the right to choose your own religion or lack of it.

They want to choose to whom you talk and who you associate with.

They decide who you marry. They would disband effective courts and not merely permit, but enforce discrimination.

SNAP!