Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punky
It is obvious, because the EUCOHR has been so proactive in running our country. Come on, from the Daily Mail, even most novices to current affairs could of probably saw the link. Who else dictates our Human Rights legisture to us?
|
Hello? Did you *READ* the link I posted where I pointed out how we were one of the *first* countries who signed up to the ECHR in 1951???
Quote:
|
Bottom line: It was obvious to me, and others.
|
Bottom line, this the logical fallacy of "Appeal to Popularity", aka the Emperor's New Clothes...
Quote:
|
I'd thought reading the Guardian, you'd know exactly how the EU court of Human Rights takes care of the issue in our country.
|
Sorry? "Reading the Guardian"? (is this meant to be an insult?!). I don't read the Guardian. In fact I don't *read* any of the Broadsheets or Tabloids. However I *do* read articles that have been written in any or all of them which turn up in searching google etc (and, no, I *don't* just read the ones I agree with!!)
Quote:
When a country starts undertaking actions to "defend" its own citizens that go *against* its most fundamental concepts of law and rights and justice, they are *giving* victories to those who wish to *destroy* that country!!
Quote:
|
That's liberal wish-wash.
|
|
Oh well *that's* a devastating counter...!!!
Quote:
|
How on earth is America preventing another 9/11-sized attack by murdering some terrorists before they can strike, a victory for the country the terrorists came from? Sounds more like a victory to the US to me. What victories are they giving to the terrorists' home country then?
|
You are engaging in a classic case of wishful thinking!
How do you *KNOW* that they were terrorists? What *proof* do you have? What happens if and when they turned out (like many of the Guantanamo Bay captives have) to be poor buggers who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Do you *really* think that their country-folk are going to say "oh well, the US wanted to be secure, so they were justified in killing innocents, just to be on the safe side"...???
Quote:
No, I think he was saying that because he *understood* the fact that liberties have to be hard fought for but it's very easy to give them up again without realising *what* you're giving up.
Quote:
|
No, liberties are a human right. Everyone deserves to be free, not just the countries that fight for them. Countries have to fight to maintain it.
|
|
I think you've just managed to contradict yourself in a spectacular fashion here!
Liberties *SHOULD* be a human right, yes, absolutely. Everyone deserves to be free, yes, definitely. Countries have to *fight* to maintain it, 100% agreement!!
If, however, those that run your country say that "to keep you safe, you're going to have to give up some liberties" it's beholden to the people to look very carefully at *WHAT* they are giving up and think whether the temporary safety that that may give is *worth* the loss. They also need to think about how easy it will be to get those liberties *back* afterwards. If they don't think about this, they don't deserve those liberties in the first place.
Which was exactly the point that Ben Franklin was trying to make.
Quote:
|
They said the same thing about CCTV. "Oooh Big Brother is watching you!", "The government will know where you like to shop!". Here's one i'd like to say: "There goes another rapist into prison because he was caught on CCTV and CrimeWatch!"
|
And *why* has Big Brother not taken over? Because there are those, like me, who have stood up and said "hang on a minute, we want some *strong* controls over what happens with these cameras. We want to make sure that those who use these systems do *NOT* abuse them by violating our privacy"!
Quote:
|
My, my, my, getting a tad personal now aren't we? I may debate with you, but you still have an opposing view and I respect that, but to call me an idiot because I dare disagree with you?
|
Sorry? Where did I use the word "idiot"? (Re-reads previous message) Oh, it appears I didn't.
Quote:
|
I don't think I need to say anything more about that. *hands Graham more rope*
|
If you are determined to make a fool of yourself, that's your perogative. However asserting that you appear to have no idea what you are talking about is *NOT* the same as "calling you an idiot". Accusing someone of "getting personal" when they are not is foolish.
BTW I believe this is your rope.
Quote:
|
You are also ignoring that Moral Sense is subjective. It came as as a suprise to Xaccers and I that you would kill the bombers, because most left-wingers say "murder is murder, and not 1 is acceptable".
|
And again you reveal you have no idea what you are talking about, because I am *NOT* a "left winger". You assumed this based on no facts and, regrettably, have made yourself look foolish again.
If you look at the "Political Compass" thread that was on here a while back, you'll find that my politics are virtually dead centre, but *strongly* libertarian.
Quote:
|
Presumption of innocence was lost a long time ago, and nothing to do with the Internet and technology, or the war on terror. Since when has a rapist ever been thought of innocent before conviction? Or a child murderer? People normally try and lynch them before it even gets to court.
|
Yes, I'm well aware that there are (all too many) people out for whom the concept of presumption of innocence is a lost idea, however those who administer justice in this country *ARE* still aware of its existance and *WILL* stand up for it and I wholeheartedly support them.
[QUOTE]No, the things that may make countries like the US better than where the terrorists come from are things like freedom.
I suggest you look at some recent US history....
Quote:
|
Freedom to practice a religion.
|
http://www.indexonline.org/indexinde...edstates.shtml
Or, closer to home:
http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/intolerance.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1445545.stm
Quote:
|
Freedom to just do things you want.
|
Have you even *heard* of the Patriot Act?!
http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/whatsnew/re...gG&Content=153
Quote:
|
Now compare that with the fact if you tried to sell alcohol in Iran.[...] America, as well as England, have to take drastic steps to protect the most important freedom of all: the right to exist without persecution, from anyone least of all from another country. It is the freedom that Al Qaeda are trying to take.
|
And by the US enacting the Patriot Act amongst others, Al Qaeda have *SUCCEEDED* in *TAKING* those freedoms away!!!
Quote:
The point is that Middle Eastern Countries want to be allowed to get on with running their *own* affairs *without* Western "influence" or "control" because they have seen what has resulted from this in the past.
Quote:
|
Yeah, and a fine job they are doing of it as well. America would love for regimes that harbour, sponser or otherwise aid terrorism to sort the problem out themselves, but they either can't, or won't.
|
|
As opposed to regimes that sponsor "brave freedom fighters"?
Colombia, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Israel, Chile, El Salvador: All have had or still have terrorists (sorry, freedom fighters!) supported by the USA!!!
http://www.bookmasters.com/clarity/b0023.htm
Quote:
No cites, then?
Quote:
|
Name a president/head of any country that would go on record saying that. I certainly wouldnt.
|
|
No cites, then. No proof. No evidence, just supposition and opinion.
Quote:
|
Inactivity. That means not doing anything.
|
Thank you, I am aware of what the word means. However I don't think you are quite aware of what it *implies*, especially in a context such as this.
Quote:
|
If you dont do X or Y about a situation, that doesn't make you apathetic
|
Thank you, at least you acknowledge that.
Quote:
|
but if you don't do anything, at all, then whats the point if you care, or you don't? You might as well not care.
|
However this is rubbish.
Quote:
|
Actions speak louder than thoughts
|
And when someone says "Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," he said. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror." there is a strong implication that anyone who doesn't do the things that the USA likes is going to suffer.
That, however, does *NOT* mean that they are either "apathetic" about terror, nor that they are *pro* terror.
Quote:
|
I'm not sneering, i'm genuinely interested (as I am with most liberals) in understanding their point of view fully. I may not agree with it, and I may even want to debate it, but I still respect it, and want to understand what you think about things.
|
In which case I first suggest you understand that I am not a "Liberal" any more than I am a "Left-Winger". Secondly I suggest you understand that, as I have said many times before, it is not necessary or obligatory to provide an alternative course of action simply because you disagree with a course that has been proposed.
Quote:
|
Well you manage to avoid giving me an answer again. Congratulations.
|
I could have sworn someone just said "I'm not sneering, i'm genuinely interested", yet then they come up with a comment like this...!
Quote:
|
It is a reasonable question,
|
No, it is not a reasonable question. I have the right to object to a course or policy *without* needing to solve the problem as the price of that objection.
Quote:
|
My failure to guess your response would be be due to the fact you don't give a lot (anything?) away. At the moment, it seems like you care, but you haven't said you would do anything specifically. That is semi-appeasement. If you don't do anything you allow terrorists to flourish, which is almost as bad as aiding them.
|
This is such utter nonsense that I won't even dignify it with a response.
Quote:
|
On a separate note, we (you?) may want to calm this down, or it'll just get closed/posts deleted. Keep debates in the right spirit.
|
And once again my solicitors, Messers Pott and Kettle-Black pay us a visit.