LonelyPilgrim wrote:jollytiddlywink, with all due respect, the issue really isn't so clear cut. What is, and is not, terrorism is always subject to the eye of the beholder - double so since, for the purposes of this discussion, we aren't talking about academic distinctions but about prosecutorial ones.
RedCelt69 wrote:If you met someone who called a terrorist (in your eyes) a freedom fighter, saying that they're wrong and you're right isn't helping matters much. As they'd say the same about you. As with so many other matters of human interaction, perspective is more-than-nothing.
wild_quinine wrote:
This conversation alone should illustrate that a group of sensibly rational people cannot determine what constitutes terrorism - and we have nothing to gain from the outcome. This is precisely the point. It is incredibly dangerous to trust any state body to determine who should be free, who should vote, what kind of speech is appropriate, etc.
Much, much safer to stick with a blanket rule that gives the state no leeway to subvert the rights of citizens. Even with such blanket rules firmly in place, the state is probably going to have a go anyway. A blanket rule, or near as you can get, is the easiest way to bat them back. Look at the history of challenges, both deliberate and accidental, against the First Ammendment to the US constitution.
You get into woolly terms in those cases, and it is a lost battle. The state wins by default. You need to be able to call them out with a clear, unambiguous, argument to a known state of affairs. The moment you say 'if' something, you've pretty much lost.
jollytiddlywink wrote:I see your point, but the obvious counterpoint is that we already trust the British government, police, and judiciary to make laws, enforce them, and decide guilt and punishment without fearing for encroachment on freedom, on voting, or on speech.
Granted, your position is a little higher up the slope than mine, but I think the slippery slope/thin end of the wedge argument ill-serves you in this instance.
Hennessy wrote:Some people seem to think this is some kind of slippery slope. As well as finding that phrase childish and pretty meaningless
Hennessy wrote:I would say I am very happy to see a higher rate of miscarriages of justice in return for a safer and more cohesive society.
Hennessy wrote:Hang the bastards. That used to work.
RedCelt69 wrote:Hennessy wrote:Some people seem to think this is some kind of slippery slope. As well as finding that phrase childish and pretty meaningless
Lots of philosophers would disagree with you... and I'm siding with them, not you.
Hennessy wrote:I would say I am very happy to see a higher rate of miscarriages of justice in return for a safer and more cohesive society.
So long as it is happening to someone other than you? Or will you happily repeat that sentence whilst incarcerated by a miscarriage of justice? No need for Benjamin Franklin; just an empathy bitchslap.
Al wrote:Hennessy wrote:Hang the bastards. That used to work.
Did it? Are you sure?
wild_quinine wrote:I spent a decade being terrified any time anything bad happened in the UK, because it meant New Labour were going to craft another ill-thought out law in response. And they seemed to specialise in laws that rely on interpretation, just so they could be sure that they could get the bad guys on something. But the side effect is a system of laws where you can get pretty much anyone for something, especially if they want to make a point of standing up for their rights.
And lo, there has been much abuse.
wild_quinine wrote:Granted, your position is a little higher up the slope than mine, but I think the slippery slope/thin end of the wedge argument ill-serves you in this instance.
Why, exactly? Because the slope isn't a precipice? Because you think the slippery slope argument no longer applies if you're actually on it?
OK, let me ask you something else.
What, exactly, do you think it is that makes a nice safe, civilized, sensible western democracy like ours - haha - different from some banana republic where the 'democratically' elected president calls himself 'General Something' and a vote counts for just precisely shit?
jollytiddlywink wrote:We've got the military subject to civilian control, a judiciary free of political influence, non-political police, and civil servants who can't be bought. It helps, too, that we have a democratic tradition.
jollytiddlywink wrote:The Emergency Powers (Defense) Act 1940 was essentially Parliament voting unfettered dictatorial powers to HM Government for the duration of the war, with both civil and military authority empowered to commandeer, direct, or otherwise use anything or anyone in the country as they saw fit. At the end of the war, the government voted almost all of those powers away again (National Service hung around for a while). And you think our government can't be trusted.
RedCelt69 wrote:Gordon Brown wanted to extend the maximum number of days someone could be detained without being (technically) arrested. When giving a reason for the UK's record detention period being extended even further into the record books, he said that it was what the police wanted. Now... a state that is run on the basis of what the police wants is given a name. 'Scuse the non-Googling, but I'm pretty sure that it's called a police state.
RedCelt69 wrote:Speaking of a sense of humour, on the matter of civil servants being unbuyable, rent/buy/download Yes Minister (Thatcher loved it) and/or Yes Prime Minister (Thatcher hated it). It is fiction, obviously, but it is fiction based on facts. If you're not educated about the buyability of the civil service, you will at least be entertained. Even now, it is immensely relevant; particularly the episodes concerning cutting wasteful spending - and the replacement of nuclear weapons (back then, it was Polaris) rings very loudly.
RedCelt69 wrote:And yes, our democratic tradition. Our FPTP system where the 1st and 3rd highest-placed parties run the country on the basis of a non-mandate in a non-representative representative democracy (and a constitutional monarchy), with a bicameral system that still includes non-elected secularists and non-elected religious leaders. No room for any wrong-doing amongst any of that, obviously.
The system is flawed and ripe for abuse - so long as you're not naive enough to think that abuse has to look like the shenanigans of a banana republic. Abuse doesn't have to rely on machine guns and coups.
jollytiddlywink wrote:RedCelt69 wrote:Gordon Brown wanted to extend the maximum number of days someone could be detained without being (technically) arrested.
A nice neat little point, except that the police didn't get the extension, did they?
I've seen all of Yes Prime Minister, thanks. Two things: a comedy program is hardly good evidence. Otherwise we could watch Blackadder Goes Forth (fiction, but based on fact) to understand war as it was in 1917 (terribly historically inaccurate, but very funny).
The point is that, as a whole, civil servants (which I expand from the Civil Service proper to include all public servants) in Britain do their jobs contentiously, neither look for nor accept bribes, and would report any such improper behavior. This alone puts British government light-years away from places like Russia, where bribery is essential to get almost anything done, even in interactions with the police, and indeed, where government officials will often demand a bribe as the price of them doing their job.
jollytiddlywink wrote:And I suppose, Redcelt, that you'd be happier with democracy if the 2nd highest-placed party was in power instead?
jollytiddlywink wrote:And where do you derive the idea that two parties in coalition, between them mustering more than 50% of the votes cast, do not have a mandate?
Hennessy wrote:I'd bet £100 nobody from St Andrews who posts on this board will ever commit a murder, if I'm wrong you can have it in packs of cigarettes and porno mags to share with your cell mates. There is no moral relationship between us and them, there is no debt owed by us to them, for anything. They have already lost their humanity by violently depriving another of life, where is the logic in saying that doesn't mean they should lose the privileges and rights of being human as well?
wild_quinine wrote:No, they did not (get an extension to the length of detainment). But let us not pretend that this occured as a grand cosmic event, observed only as an echo of the past, from a far distant star system.
It didn't happen because we, as a nation, didn't let it happen.
If you think that this state of affairs supports your position better than mine then, good luck with that and all, but the 'sit back and trust your government' policy you're putting forwards suggests that you were on the losing side of that particular debate, and it's therefore a mite irking to see you trumpeting it as some kind of a soapbox slamdunk.
I've seen all of Yes Prime Minister, thanks. Two things: a comedy program is hardly good evidence. Otherwise we could watch Blackadder Goes Forth (fiction, but based on fact) to understand war as it was in 1917 (terribly historically inaccurate, but very funny).You're right that they don't *contain* evidence, per se. But in a way, they *are* evidence. Many of the jokes in both of those shows are pure satire. Satire works by referencing known states of affairs, and riffing off them. Satire is very hard to do properly, because if you are self-evidently wrong in your assumptions, then it isn't funny.
The point is that, as a whole, civil servants (which I expand from the Civil Service proper to include all public servants) in Britain do their jobs contentiously, neither look for nor accept bribes, and would report any such improper behavior. This alone puts British government light-years away from places like Russia, where bribery is essential to get almost anything done, even in interactions with the police, and indeed, where government officials will often demand a bribe as the price of them doing their job.To paraphrase: I find your glut of faith disturbing.
But OK, let's assume that you are absolutely correct here. Let's assume that our civil servants are (nearly) incorruptible. It's actually a better example than the banana republic hypothetical that I put forwards. I'll use the same argument:
What exactly do you think it is that makes Britain better in that respect than Russia?
It can't be the people, obviously. People are people, anywhere you go. You could suggest that it's the culture, and you'd be partially correct, but you'd be on some pretty thin ice. You could suggest it's the economic situation, and I'd agree that this must contribute... but there are probably poor countries less corrupt than our own, and rich ones more so.
I put it to you that the main difference is that the system is better maintained to enable us to be democratic, fair, and responsible. But where we differ is that I do not believe that this sort of thing takes care of itself.
This is a very, very hard state of affairs to manufacture, but it's terribly easy to lose. It takes huge amounts of work, thought, honesty, tolerance and sacrifice to maintain a semi-functional democracy and too, too little to give it away.
Education is very, very valuable here. Understanding is very valuable. Philosophy, believe it or not, is a practical skill.
Return to The Sinner's Main Board
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 15 guests