Control Order

[bruciebabie]

So now Bliar and his cronies can put anyone they don't like under house arrest. A bit like Myanmar with Aung San Suu Kyi. Our government is there to serve us but increasingly they seem to be thinking like Hitler or Stalin, that we are there to be controlled by a combination of lies and a repressive regime. They have neutered the BBC and have Murdoch on side so we don't even have the press to protect us any more, just like in Russia and Italy. If they think that someone is a danger to society they should put that person in court and try and prove it.
As for terrorism, what bollox. Look at the numbers killed by terrorism and compare that with the 5 million smoking kills each year. They would save far more lives by fighting AIDS or engineering roads properly with the money. Most terrorism in the world is now directly caused by the USA who invaded Iraq without any proper justification and who finance Israel to subjugate the Palastinians.

[BliarOut]

bruciebabie said:

So now Bliar and his cronies can put anyone they don't like under house arrest. A bit like Myanmar with Aung San Suu Kyi. Our government is there to serve us but increasingly they seem to be thinking like Hitler or Stalin, that we are there to be controlled by a combination of lies and a repressive regime. They have neutered the BBC and have Murdoch on side so we don't even have the press to protect us any more, just like in Russia and Italy. If they think that someone is a danger to society they should put that person in court and try and prove it. As for terrorism, what bollox. Look at the numbers killed by terrorism and compare that with the 5 million smoking kills each year. They would save far more lives by fighting AIDS or engineering roads properly with the money. Most terrorism in the world is now directly caused by the USA who invaded Iraq without any proper justification and who finance Israel to subjugate the Palastinians.

Interesting points Bruciebabe, but...... How does this desire to avoid control and not restrict personal freedoms sit with your views on smoking?

Now I seem to recall that you are passionately against smoking, whereas I am pro-smoking. A total ban on smoking is a ban on my personal freedom to make a decision. Personally I would be happy with smoking and non-smoking areas, yet if I remember your opinions correctly, you would support an outright ban.

So, if you would argue for a total ban, it would seem to me that you would be agreeing with removal of my freedom of choice. Ergo to some extent or another you agree with removal of an individuals freedom of choice in principle.

Do you accept that freedom of choice requires compromise and tolerance from all sides, or is it your view that it is acceptable for one section of society to impose its wishes on another?

Discuss

[bruciebabie]

BliarOut said:

bruciebabie said: So now Bliar and his cronies can put anyone they don't like under house arrest. A bit like Myanmar with Aung San Suu Kyi. Our government is there to serve us but increasingly they seem to be thinking like Hitler or Stalin, that we are there to be controlled by a combination of lies and a repressive regime. They have neutered the BBC and have Murdoch on side so we don't even have the press to protect us any more, just like in Russia and Italy. If they think that someone is a danger to society they should put that person in court and try and prove it. As for terrorism, what bollox. Look at the numbers killed by terrorism and compare that with the 5 million smoking kills each year. They would save far more lives by fighting AIDS or engineering roads properly with the money. Most terrorism in the world is now directly caused by the USA who invaded Iraq without any proper justification and who finance Israel to subjugate the Palastinians. Interesting points Bruciebabe, but...... How does this desire to avoid control and not restrict personal freedoms sit with your views on smoking? Now I seem to recall that you are passionately against smoking, whereas I am pro-smoking. A total ban on smoking is a ban on my personal freedom to make a decision. Personally I would be happy with smoking and non-smoking areas, yet if I remember your opinions correctly, you would support an outright ban. So, if you would argue for a total ban, it would seem to me that you would be agreeing with removal of my freedom of choice. Ergo to some extent or another you agree with removal of an individuals freedom of choice in principle. Do you accept that freedom of choice requires compromise and tolerance from all sides, or is it your view that it is acceptable for one section of society to impose its wishes on another? Discuss

Too easy.
I should be free not to be persecuted by the state.
I should be free not to be poisoned by drug addicts.