|
|
Post by oracle75 on Mar 1, 2024 15:06:15 GMT
Do you not understand democracy? It is the job of the MP to connect between the people and the government. They also read papers , lobbyists and focus groups. If the issue vomws to a white paper, it is voted on. Can you suggest a better system? I never said there was a better system . I never addressed the subject of a better system . Had you read the post then you might have read “NO system can make a poor law a good one .”. Nil points ..try again 😁 [br Governments create legal systems. Try again. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 1, 2024 15:26:13 GMT
I never said there was a better system . I never addressed the subject of a better system . Had you read the post then you might have read “NO system can make a poor law a good one .”. Nil points ..try again 😁 [br Governments create legal systems. Try again. Oh dear 😅 No system can make a poor law a good one ‘is not refuted by ‘ Governments create legal systems’. It’s as if you can’t refute it so you just post anything to obfuscate…. Nil points again , I’m afraid . |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Mar 1, 2024 15:47:55 GMT
[br Governments create legal systems. Try again. Oh dear 😅 No system can make a poor law a good one ‘is not refuted by ‘ Governments create legal systems’. It’s as if you can’t refute it so you just post anything to obfuscate…. Nil points again , I’m afraid . You must be aware by now that i dont give rat's ass about your opinion, edpecially since you seen to display all the cognisance of an unfertilised egg. Please find someone else to troll. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 1, 2024 15:52:22 GMT
Oh dear 😅 No system can make a poor law a good one ‘is not refuted by ‘ Governments create legal systems’. It’s as if you can’t refute it so you just post anything to obfuscate…. Nil points again , I’m afraid . You must be aware by now that i dont give rat's ass about your opinion, edpecially since you seen to display all the cognisance of an unfertilised egg. Please find someone else to troll. Once again I will advise you to take your own advice and I will add to that …..stop projecting and posting strawmen . You are nowhere near clever enough to get away with it . You’re welcome. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2024 18:28:24 GMT
What is actually needed is legal measures that restrict the government rather than us - ie it should be illegal for the government to make laws that restrict speech one the basis of wide open, vague and subjective categories (ie 'hate'). Whilst I think some types of speech are obnoxious and despicable, there has to be a balance somewhere that is legally defined. Certainly any speech which is a deliberate incitement to violence or disorder ought to be illegal. And in workplace environments for sure, colleagues should not have to put up with banter that is racist, sexist or homophobic, because not only would such banter risk undermining the confidence and performance of colleagues but can also constitute a form of harassment or bullying. Perhaps using terms that are widely regarded as derogatory, phobic, and insulting with the intent of being offensive ought also to be something that could land you in trouble. Calling people pak*s, nigg*rs, co*ns, w*gs, pufft*rs, sh*rtlifters - terms which most of us can remember being common currency - should not be considered acceptable just because the majority thought it was decades ago. But crossing the line into censoring or legislating against the free expression of political opinions is a definite bad thing. The best antidote - indeed the only effective antidote - against an opinion you find obnoxious is a better argument in debate. Making the person expressing the obnoxious opinion look like an idiot is far more productive than trying to silence him. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 8, 2024 12:18:29 GMT
What is actually needed is legal measures that restrict the government rather than us - ie it should be illegal for the government to make laws that restrict speech one the basis of wide open, vague and subjective categories (ie 'hate'). Whilst I think some types of speech are obnoxious and despicable, there has to be a balance somewhere that is legally defined. Certainly any speech which is a deliberate incitement to violence or disorder ought to be illegal. And in workplace environments for sure, colleagues should not have to put up with banter that is racist, sexist or homophobic, because not only would such banter risk undermining the confidence and performance of colleagues but can also constitute a form of harassment or bullying. Perhaps using terms that are widely regarded as derogatory, phobic, and insulting with the intent of being offensive ought also to be something that could land you in trouble. Calling people pak*s, nigg*rs, co*ns, w*gs, pufft*rs, sh*rtlifters - terms which most of us can remember being common currency - should not be considered acceptable just because the majority thought it was decades ago. But crossing the line into censoring or legislating against the free expression of political opinions is a definite bad thing. The best antidote - indeed the only effective antidote - against an opinion you find obnoxious is a better argument in debate. Making the person expressing the obnoxious opinion look like an idiot is far more productive than trying to silence him. The trouble is you end up with zero sum exchange between tightening restrictions to catch all abuses vs allowing political speech. Imho, it would be far better for society to risk overlooking substantial amounts of abuse than it would be to attempt to make every interaction policed and equitable, but risk political speech. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 8, 2024 13:28:21 GMT
Whilst I think some types of speech are obnoxious and despicable, there has to be a balance somewhere that is legally defined. Certainly any speech which is a deliberate incitement to violence or disorder ought to be illegal. And in workplace environments for sure, colleagues should not have to put up with banter that is racist, sexist or homophobic, because not only would such banter risk undermining the confidence and performance of colleagues but can also constitute a form of harassment or bullying. Perhaps using terms that are widely regarded as derogatory, phobic, and insulting with the intent of being offensive ought also to be something that could land you in trouble. Calling people pak*s, nigg*rs, co*ns, w*gs, pufft*rs, sh*rtlifters - terms which most of us can remember being common currency - should not be considered acceptable just because the majority thought it was decades ago. But crossing the line into censoring or legislating against the free expression of political opinions is a definite bad thing. The best antidote - indeed the only effective antidote - against an opinion you find obnoxious is a better argument in debate. Making the person expressing the obnoxious opinion look like an idiot is far more productive than trying to silence him. The trouble is you end up with zero sum exchange between tightening restrictions to catch all abuses vs allowing political speech. Imho, it would be far better for society to risk overlooking substantial amounts of abuse than it would be to attempt to make every interaction policed and equitable, but risk political speech. Then of course there is the invention of abuse, coloured is OK sometimes but not in others, of colour is the preferred option for many, black as an adjective may be acceptable but as a noun it depends on who is using it and in what context. BAME is now much deprecated yet was the chosen option for many BAME groups just a short time ago. There is also the racial outline of abuse, white people cannot define the abuse they receive as abuse but black people can and only people of colour get to decide if terms used against white people are abusive or not. It is a right royal mess speaking as a Jock, Haggis-Muncher, Teuchter, Sweaty sock, Sheep-Shagger, Macsporran, Hamish, Seeyoujimmy, McTavish. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 8, 2024 14:00:40 GMT
The trouble is you end up with zero sum exchange between tightening restrictions to catch all abuses vs allowing political speech. Imho, it would be far better for society to risk overlooking substantial amounts of abuse than it would be to attempt to make every interaction policed and equitable, but risk political speech. Then of course there is the invention of abuse, coloured is OK sometimes but not in others, of colour is the preferred option for many, black as an adjective may be acceptable but as a noun it depends on who is using it and in what context. BAME is now much deprecated yet was the chosen option for many BAME groups just a short time ago. There is also the racial outline of abuse, white people cannot define the abuse they receive as abuse but black people can and only people of colour get to decide if terms used against white people are abusive or not. It is a right royal mess speaking as a Jock, Haggis-Muncher, Teuchter, Sweaty sock, Sheep-Shagger, Macsporran, Hamish, Seeyoujimmy, McTavish. Yes - Rule 1: A ny rule will be abused as much as it can be. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 8, 2024 15:33:56 GMT
Then of course there is the invention of abuse, coloured is OK sometimes but not in others, of colour is the preferred option for many, black as an adjective may be acceptable but as a noun it depends on who is using it and in what context. BAME is now much deprecated yet was the chosen option for many BAME groups just a short time ago. There is also the racial outline of abuse, white people cannot define the abuse they receive as abuse but black people can and only people of colour get to decide if terms used against white people are abusive or not. It is a right royal mess speaking as a Jock, Haggis-Muncher, Teuchter, Sweaty sock, Sheep-Shagger, Macsporran, Hamish, Seeyoujimmy, McTavish. Yes - Rule 1: A ny rule will be abused as much as it can be. No, no. I've got the first two rules here:
The first rule states that 'no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers. For any such consistent formal system, there will always be statements about natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system.'
The second rule is, 'an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 8, 2024 15:50:46 GMT
To put into social terms - there is no such thing as a logically consistent and self contained ethical system. Any system of laws/rules operated by psychopaths will give psychopathic outcomes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 8, 2024 22:45:01 GMT
To put into social terms - there is no such thing as a logically consistent and self contained ethical system. Any system of laws/rules operated by psychopaths will give psychopathic outcomes. Exactly, because this works with any system. You could devise a system of symbols and it would hold true, as in it is a meta theory where numbers are only a subset of the domain it operates in. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 9, 2024 8:04:12 GMT
To put into social terms - there is no such thing as a logically consistent and self contained ethical system. Any system of laws/rules operated by psychopaths will give psychopathic outcomes. Exactly, because this works with any system. You could devise a system of symbols and it would hold true, as in it is a meta theory where numbers are only a subset of the domain it operates in. What we need is a mathematical proof for (explanation of) why communism never solves anything because it misses the point. The world could do with that |
|
