Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen
Sorry, but how are those MPs anymore experienced or knowledgeable than us? Those privileged many with there expense accounts and people to do things for them. Many without kids too.
|
In theory it's down to us to ensure that we vote for the best people for the job, but I accept that it's not always that simple.
---------- Post added at 22:48 ---------- Previous post was at 22:46 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by jem
Tell me, do you honestly think that the MPs we elect have any more experience or knowledge than the ‘my mate down the pub who thinks...’? Of course not, they will vote for whatever ‘seems’ popular at the time. And this is irrespective for the practicalities of doing it or doing further harms that the legislation probably will cause.
Let me give you an example;
Do you believe that child sexual abuse is wrong? Yes or No?
If ‘no’ then do you believe that everything should be done to minimise it? Yes or No?
Statistics suggests that the vast majority of child sexual abuse happens in their own home. Do you agree with this? Yes or No?
So would monitoring of activity inside everyone's home, reduce the incidence of CSA? Yes or No?
Logically you have to say ‘yes’ so we must install cameras in every room in every house in the country, watched 24/7 by, oh maybe we get the unemployed* to do this for a small fee and they ‘report’ anything they don’t like! Do you agree with this? Yes or No?
If ’no’ then you obviously don’t agree that ‘everything should be done....’; you are no better than a child molester yourself! You see how this works?
After all, who cares who is watching what you do, after all, if you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear; no? I assume you have no curtains up at your windows?
Look Richard, I have absolutely no doubt that you are a good person, you generally want to protect vulnerable people, but sometime, well often really, the obvious ’sounds like a good idea’ solution isn’t well thought through and causes more issues than it solves.
* absolutely no disrespect to anyone who is unemployed, just struck me as a possible source of people who could be paid a little extra to spend a couple of hours each day watching what others are doing in their own home. What could possibly go wrong?
|
This is why legislation should be thought through very carefully due to the 'law of unintended consequences'.
---------- Post added at 22:49 ---------- Previous post was at 22:48 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by jem
Good point, so Richard believes any child/person who is abused actually ‘chose this’ and wanted it to happen. So how dare we intervene with laws preventing this?
Or we just assume it’s all gibberish and move on!
|
I didn't say what you claim.
---------- Post added at 22:52 ---------- Previous post was at 22:49 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees
So Richard in another thread you posted the following statement
‘ Some people are born disabled, but it's possible that they chose this in order to understand what the life of a disabled person is like eg they previously scoffed or discriminated against disabled people, realised that this was wrong and decided to go on a 'training course'. This is a very controversial view as, essentially, it's saying that abused/neglected/disabled people chose the situation that they are in or experienced.’
Taking your logic could it not be the children at risk chose to be born that way ?
You can either admit your statement is gibberish or, you can accept its applicable in any scenario.
Choose one as you can’t have it both ways
|
This theory could be applicable to any scenario.
As the late Queen Elizabeth II said "We are here to observe, to grow, to learn and to love. Then we go home".