TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 23 of 26 FirstFirst ... 3813181920212223242526 LastLast
Results 551 to 575 of 642

Thread: The Gun Thread About Guns And Gun Related Gunnery

  1. #551
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Before you start thanking the liberals, you might want to know that the law that allows the UK government to do this was passed by the Conservative Party. In fact, they had a landslide majority at the time.

  2. #552
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    What is it with these guys and multi-posts? Is it some kind of propagandist SOP?

  3. #553
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by jkcerda View Post
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ind...256.html%3famp

    Article does state Alfie breathing on his own does not mean DRs were wrong. But as a vulture I’m happy to say that the GOVT can suck my mini penis and that the decision of my kids faith is mine and not theirs , if there is a fucking shred of hope you bet I’m taking it and any mofo in my way is going to eat lead. Poor dad can’t even use a knife.....
    There isn't a shred of hope left to them. He was in a semi-vegetative state since practically the day he was born, and has only gotten worse from there. The only thing a potential miracle cure will do is keep the kid alive. They will never have a son.

    You're advocating placating the needs of despairing parents with empty hope at the expense of the child. Transporting him will lead to nothing but pain and suffering for all.

  4. #554
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    These guys are under socialized medicine and all the pitfalls that come with it. Compare it to say Medicare in the U.S. you seriously think they know better and no one else can help the child elsewhere? Concentrating on the kid is really not my point. As a vulture I am pointing out the citizens are at the mercy of both the criminals and the govt whims. Guy in post 542 made a difference that saved his sons life. These poor souls don’t have that option or the means at all to take kid by force elsewhere where he could get the care he needs. DRs make mistakes. Alfie is 23 months. Not bad for a kid that has been a vegetable since almost birth

  5. #555
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    It's not just the GOSH doctors that say there is no hope for improvement. Other experts, including American ones, have been consulted about this. And it's not like the Vatican hospital is offering a treatment, let alone a cure.

    Understandably, the parents want to keep their child alive at any cost as long as possible. But the doctors also have an ethical obligation to prevent unnecessary suffering. And the UK government, following a law passed by conservatives, has an obligation to intervene in this case in the interest of the child.

    Also, once more, this has absolutely nothing to do with "socialised medicine". Italy also has "socialised medicine", for example.

  6. #556
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Starker. Guns aside do you believe the govt /GOSH/ hospital blah blah blah should have the power to keep the kid till he dies? Or should the parents be able to decide.?

  7. #557
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    I generally believe the parents have the right (and the obligation) to decide what's best for their children, except when they are neglecting them and/or causing them harm, in which case the government should definitely intervene.

    As for Alfie Evans, I'm not sure whether this is the case. The parents want to keep their child alive, but if that means they are making the child suffer, should they be allowed to do it? Is it best for the child? It's kind of a murky situation, and things are very heated due to politics and religion.

    I'll flip it around and ask you whether parents should have the power to make medical decisions for their children even against the child's best interests?

  8. #558
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    That’s an awesome flip. And it entails a lot like the anti Vaxxers and idiots who try to “pray” illness away , I agree with the points you raise , there are times when govt intervention is needed to prevent harm to minors . As an outsider looking in Alfies plight is a biased issue depending on what sources are presented , easy to arm chair quarterback from way back here because in THIS case I don’t believe the govt should have the way so when others have offered to help. And as pointed out we have the other end of things with morons just praying a kid gets better , issue is very complex. Balancing freedom with govt intervention is never easy , I prefer less govt but do acknowledge there is some govt intervention needed at times

  9. #559
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    The powers of the state in regard to the individual certainly should be kept in check, as the potential for (and history of) misuse is so great. A well-functioning independent judicial system is the traditional way to do it, but of course people should not be overly reliant on the government either. But this is a matter of balance that I don't think people will agree on ever. Definitely a lot of room for debate there.

  10. #560
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    I generally believe the parents have the right (and the obligation) to decide what's best for their children, except when they are neglecting them and/or causing them harm, in which case the government should definitely intervene.

    As for Alfie Evans, I'm not sure whether this is the case. The parents want to keep their child alive, but if that means they are making the child suffer, should they be allowed to do it? Is it best for the child? It's kind of a murky situation, and things are very heated due to politics and religion.
    This is a case of the UK exerting it's role as the lessor of parental rights. Parents in the UK have the right to decide things for their children unless the state, the Ultimate Parent, says otherwise.

    The judge in this case ruled that: “almost the entirety of Alfie’s brain [has] been eroded leaving only water and cerebral spinal fluid ... the connective pathways within the white matter of the brain which facilitate rudimentary sensation — hearing, touch, taste and sight — had been obliterated.” If he is so senseless that he can't feel pain, as, indeed, the doctors of Alder Hey testified, then the state's argument that they're trying to keep him from unnecessary pain is ridiculous. The state has no compelling interest in overriding the parents' decision in what is in the best interest of their son.

    To me, this seems a(nother) very dangerous precedent for the subjects of the UK. And never has "subject" been a more fitting term. You are subject, absolutely, to the whim of the state. Of course the state has a "monopoly" on legal violence. It make the laws. They could pass a law tomorrow, dismember Alfie and take his still-beating healthy-little heart for another more deserving subject, and that would be legal. It's not a very far fetched scenario, either.


    I'll flip it around and ask you whether parents should have the power to make medical decisions for their children even against the child's best interests?
    Why stop at medical interests? Why not educational, social, physical? It's illegal to home-school in Germany; if caught doing so you can face hefty fines and have your children taken away. Do you approve? Why should parents be allowed to raise their children on a diet of McDonald's and KFC? Do you know how unhealthy that is, and what studies show about obesity in children and depression, yadayadayada...

    In fact, does anyone really have business having children without state permission? (see: China)

    halfway through typing this, I heard my 2 year old son's croaky voice saying "dad, i needtago pee". So I took him. And I realized, while he peed all over the toilet rim and tiles of my bathroom, a few things:

    First, the answer to your above question is "yes", with the understanding that it's not always going to work out for the best as far as the kids are concerned. And that's too bad, but it's the price to be paid for free societies. It's neither possible nor desirable to have a government that can fix all social ills. Once upon a time, during the reign of Pius IX, it was deemed appropriate by the authorities to seize the children of Jewish parents who had been baptized (the kids, that is), even if the baptism was done against the will of the parents. The thought process was that the spiritual welfare of the children outweighed the rights of the parents. You seem to be advocating for the same thing, from the secular side. Unless there is clear-cut child abuse happening, the state should have a very limited role in parent-child interactions. The child-parent relationship predates the citizen-state relationship, and is far more important to society.

    second: I love my (5) children more than anything in this world, and I feel a great deal of pain contemplating Alfie's parents' agony. There's nothing in the world as terrifying as the prospect of harm coming to my kids.

    third: If any judge in this country tried to do to my family what Mr. Justice Hayden has done to the Evans family, I, or someone in my family, would kill him. I'm very certain of that. It's a coldly comforting thought, and a nice touchstone--I know exactly what it would take for me to take up arms against the state. Is there anything the state could do to you that would make you take up arms against it?

    fourth: I love living in a country where I have the means at my disposal to make #3 a reality, and this entire episode has steeled my pro-gun position. The UK could only benefit from angry mobs gunning down black-robed-wig-wearing despots, methinks.

  11. #561
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    So, Draxil, are you saying that parents should have the right to refuse their children life-saving blood transfusions based on their religious beliefs?

  12. #562
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Yeah I dont get why the govt insist in letting the kid starve to death vs letting someone else take over

  13. #563
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    The child cannot swallow food and is unable to keep it in his stomach without problems. They have to inject it directly into the small bowel. Which they are doing, from what I understand.

  14. #564
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Draxil View Post
    This is a case of the UK exerting it's role as the lessor of parental rights. Parents in the UK have the right to decide things for their children unless the state, the Ultimate Parent, says otherwise.
    Citizens have rights, including children, and in cases where the government intervenes, it is not acting "as a parent", it is acting "as a state" by protecting the childrens' rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Draxil View Post
    The judge in this case ruled that: “almost the entirety of Alfie’s brain [has] been eroded leaving only water and cerebral spinal fluid ... the connective pathways within the white matter of the brain which facilitate rudimentary sensation — hearing, touch, taste and sight — had been obliterated.” If he is so senseless that he can't feel pain, as, indeed, the doctors of Alder Hey testified, then the state's argument that they're trying to keep him from unnecessary pain is ridiculous. The state has no compelling interest in overriding the parents' decision in what is in the best interest of their son.
    From the same document (bolding mine):

    https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-cont...ey-v-evans.pdf

    59. Though F cleaves to the need for a diagnosis i.e. to understand what caused Alfie’s condition, there are no more tests which can now sensibly be undertaken. Indeed, even if some were identified they would be of no use to Alfie. The brain does not regenerate. As Dr M says a “label will not help Alfie now”.

    60. Whilst I have, for the reasons stated, rejected the evidence of Dr Hubner, I do not exclude the possibility that travel by Air Ambulance may remain a theoretical option. It requires to be considered however in the context of the matters above and one further important consideration. All agree that it is unsafe to discount the possibility that Alfie continues to experience pain, particularly surrounding his convulsions. The evidence points to this being unlikely but certainly, it can not be excluded.

    61. Alongside all this it must be remembered that Alfie can not sustain life on his own. It is the ventilator that has been keeping him alive for many months, he is unable to sustain his own respiratory effort.

    62. All this drives me reluctantly and sadly to one clear conclusion. Properly analysed, Alfie’s need now is for good quality palliative care. By this I mean care which will keep him as comfortable as possible at the last stage of his life. He requires peace, quiet and privacy in order that he may conclude his life, as he has lived it, with dignity.

    63. The plans to take him to Italy have to be evaluated against this analysis of his needs. There are obvious challenges. Away from the intensive care provided by Alder Hey PICU, Alfie is inevitably more vulnerable, not least to infection. The maintenance of his anticonvulsant regime, which is, in itself, of limited effect, risks being compromised in travel. The journey, self-evidently will be burdensome. Nobody would wish Alfie to die in transit.

    64. All of this might be worth risking if there were any prospect of treatment, there is none. For this reason the alternative advanced by the father is irreconcilable with Alfie’s best interests. F continues to struggle to accept that it is palliation not treatment that is all that can now be offered to his son.
    Quote Originally Posted by Draxil View Post
    To me, this seems a(nother) very dangerous precedent for the subjects of the UK. And never has "subject" been a more fitting term. You are subject, absolutely, to the whim of the state. Of course the state has a "monopoly" on legal violence. It make the laws. They could pass a law tomorrow, dismember Alfie and take his still-beating healthy-little heart for another more deserving subject, and that would be legal. It's not a very far fetched scenario, either.
    And there are checks against the state's power. In a lot of modern states, you can't just pass laws willy-nilly, they are balanced against the constitution, which guarantees certain rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Draxil View Post
    Why stop at medical interests? Why not educational, social, physical? It's illegal to home-school in Germany; if caught doing so you can face hefty fines and have your children taken away. Do you approve? Why should parents be allowed to raise their children on a diet of McDonald's and KFC? Do you know how unhealthy that is, and what studies show about obesity in children and depression, yadayadayada...
    Yes, indeed, when parents neglect their childrens' educational, social, physical needs, I do think the government should intervene. Not in the absurd strawman examples that you bring, but for example when the children are not attending school due to parental neglect or because they are put to work instead. Also, in the case of malnutrition, the government absolutely should intervene.

    Homeschooling is a different matter. I think it should be allowed when the parents are up to the task.

    Quote Originally Posted by Draxil View Post
    third: If any judge in this country tried to do to my family what Mr. Justice Hayden has done to the Evans family, I, or someone in my family, would kill him. I'm very certain of that. It's a coldly comforting thought, and a nice touchstone--I know exactly what it would take for me to take up arms against the state. Is there anything the state could do to you that would make you take up arms against it?

    fourth: I love living in a country where I have the means at my disposal to make #3 a reality, and this entire episode has steeled my pro-gun position. The UK could only benefit from angry mobs gunning down black-robed-wig-wearing despots, methinks.
    Except assassinating/lynching judges is not really taking up arms against the state, is it? It's simply taking revenge because you don't agree with a ruling.

    Edit: since you asked, yes there are things the state can do that I would take up arms against. And my family has done that in the past and suffered the consequences. Granted, it was a foreign occupying state, but nevertheless. The judicial system not working the way I want is not among those things, however.
    Last edited by Starker; 28th Apr 2018 at 02:50.

  15. #565
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2003
    Location: Cambridgeshire UK
    Alfie died in the early hours of this morning.

  16. #566
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Homeschooling is a different matter. I think it should be allowed when the parents are up to the task.
    Hell, we had one of the best homeschoolers around posting here at one point. Fett made learning look fun!

    The whole point of schooling in general is to prepare your kids for the world at large. If you think you can do a better job of it that public or private schools, more power to you. But if you're doing it for entirely ideological reasons, like you think science is sinful, and you want to keep their kids at home 24/7, reading from Revelations alongside Jack Chick tracts, then no. You're crazy, and your children shouldn't be made to suffer due to your craziness.

  17. #567
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    My brother homeschooled my nephew. I wasn't a fan since I thought it makes him have that weirdness people have when they haven't been around other people for a long time. I mean kids always have a weird phase, but being subjected to the harsh light of other kids' opinions can have a humanizing effect. You learn how to deal with people with radically different worldviews without losing your shit. But to each their own, I guess. He's not so badly off.

    Not sure why we're talking about this. This is a gun thread. Now that the sane people have established why gun control is all that, can we talk about our favorite guns, if only for sims & firing ranges? Pretty cool are the M27, MG4, MP5 & SA80 ... but I think I'll have to go with the Steyr AUG in the end. 40 years later and it's still cyberpunk AF.
    Last edited by demagogue; 28th Apr 2018 at 08:46.

  18. #568
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    There's an awful lot to try to respond to here, and I hate quote trees. Bear with me, and please let me know if I've missed anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Citizens have rights, including children, and in cases where the government intervenes, it is not acting "as a parent", it is acting "as a state" by protecting the childrens' rights.



    From the same document (bolding mine):





    And there are checks against the state's power. In a lot of modern states, you can't just pass laws willy-nilly, they are balanced against the constitution, which guarantees certain rights.
    1) Alfie had a terminal illness. He would never have a normal life, and had slim (short of miraculous) chance of recovery. Even with extraordinary care his lifespan wasn't going to be long.
    2) The state could argue a compelling interest in his case when the financial burden of caring for him was being shouldered by the taxpayer
    3) The minute a third party stepped in and offered to shoulder that burden, the state should have said "OK", and gotten the fuck out of the way
    4) Instead, the state thought it best to make this a precedent where it is the final arbiter of which lives are worth preserving/prolonging and which aren't.
    5) All men are endowed (not by the state) with the right to life. In the event that they are unable to exercise that right, it falls to their family, their appointed surrogates, or at last resort, the state to intervene on their behalf. The state, in this case, said that it was the final arbiter in the matter and everyone else had better get in line.
    6) The populace, after allowing itself to be deprived long ago of the means to do otherwise, gave a half-hearted angry "baaa" and got back in line.

    Yes, indeed, when parents neglect their children's educational, social, physical needs, I do think the government should intervene. Not in the absurd strawman examples that you bring, but for example when the children are not attending school due to parental neglect or because they are put to work instead. Also, in the case of malnutrition, the government absolutely should intervene.

    Homeschooling is a different matter. I think it should be allowed when the parents are up to the task.
    My point about children and McDonald's wasn't a strawman. There are dozens of instances I can link to in that vein, in the UK and the US. If you start unloading parental rights and obligations on the government, at what point do you stop? It's a very slippery slope, and you can always justify just a little more government intervention. 200 lbs at age 10 is ridiculous. But if that's ridiculous, then why not 180? If 180, why not 150? Why not 145? 140? Cut-off point at 120? BMI greater than 26 or 90th percentile? What if you teach that evolution is hog-wash in your homeschooling? What if you don't teach sex ed? If you teach that birth control is immoral? That homosexuality is unnatural and sinful? That there is such a thing as immutable, biological sex and gender? That sin exists? That there is a God? Are these reasons for state intervention?

    Except assassinating/lynching judges is not really taking up arms against the state, is it? It's simply taking revenge because you don't agree with a ruling.

    Edit: since you asked, yes there are things the state can do that I would take up arms against. And my family has done that in the past and suffered the consequences. Granted, it was a foreign occupying state, but nevertheless. The judicial system not working the way I want is not among those things, however.
    One man's terrorist etc. as your side frequently says when defending Islamic radicals. I'd say it's taking up arms against the state. Who better constitutes "the state" than an appointed judiciary? They're not subject to democratic recall, and are not accountable to the populace they are appointed to serve. There is no redress available to the Evans family. The state has deemed that their child isn't going to live, and is forbidding them from taking any measures to prolong his life. There's absolutely no justification for usurping their parental authority in this case. If it's willing to do this to a child, it's willing to do it to Grandpa. Then dad. Then a wife or sibling. You knock US citizens for living in an Orwellian surveillance state, but you defend that same surveillance state when it arbitrarily exercises its power in life and death decisions.

    Yeah. If I lived there, I'd say it's time to overthrow the state. I was at that point long before this decision, though. When the Lord Mayor of your most populous city declares that "there's no reason to carry a knife", and that all men are subject to arbitrary searches by the police, then you know you're living in a totalitarian state. When your government refuses to let you own arms, you live in a totalitarian state, no matter how benevolent. The Evans affair was an instance of the totalitarian state testing its boundaries. Apparently there aren't any boundaries. And there's no point that is "too much" for the subjects of the UK.

  19. #569
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Landahn
    Quote Originally Posted by Draxil View Post
    as your side frequently says when defending Islamic radicals.
    No one's going to take you seriously when you post idiotic rubbish such as this.

  20. #570
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Quote Originally Posted by N'Al View Post
    No one's going to take you seriously when you post idiotic rubbish such as this.
    Sorry, would "One's man's terrorist is another man's armed insurgent" be less rubbish?

    Mark Steyn has a characteristically pithy summation of the situation:

    Likewise there is no compelling reason for the British state to kill Alfie. So, when the Pope has championed his cause and the Italian government has conferred citizenship upon him and there is a plane standing by to fly him to the Continent, why not err on the side of generosity? Why not let his parents enjoy whatever extra time may remain with their helpless child? Why is it so necessary for the British bureaucracy to be seen to kill this two-year-old on their timetable?

    One might almost get the impression that the state's determination to teach British parents who's really in charge overrides other considerations. One notes, for example, the weird obsession of the High Court judge who passed Alfie's death sentence with aspects of the Evans' public campaign and their supporters - a topic entirely irrelevant to any point of law but one which Mr Justice Hayden lacks the self-discipline to stay silent on. And, as with almost any other story out of the United Kingdom these days, this tragedy would not be complete without the thuggish boobs of Her Majesty's constabulary clamping down on any errant Tweeters opposing the diktat of the authorities.

    Alfie Evans died in the early hours of Saturday morning. We were told that there was no miracle awaiting in England, Italy or elsewhere for poor little Alfie. Two-thirds of his brain had been eaten away. But, in the grander scheme of things, it is not the baby but Mother England that seems increasingly brain-dead, and for whom it might be kindest simply to unplug...

  21. #571
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Landahn
    Quote Originally Posted by Draxil View Post
    Sorry, would "One's man's terrorist is another man's armed insurgent" be less rubbish?
    Doesn't matter how it is phrased. Pretending it's in defense of Islamic radicals is idiotic rubbish, though.

  22. #572
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    You know what, I was out of my depth on this topic. I started researching Steyn's claim that the constabulary are watching Twitter about this sad affair, and saw a link to this, which is, disturbingly, real.


    You people are totally screwed.

  23. #573
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Quote Originally Posted by N'Al View Post
    Doesn't matter how it is phrased. Pretending it's in defense of Islamic radicals is idiotic rubbish, though.
    You don't think that those of a progressive bent, including your government, don't bend over backwards to avoid the charge of Islamophobia?

  24. #574
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Landahn
    Not the same thing. What happened in Rotherham was utterly idiotic, yes, and should never have happened. It's still not defending Islamic radicals, though.

  25. #575
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Draxil View Post
    1) Alfie had a terminal illness. He would never have a normal life, and had slim (short of miraculous) chance of recovery. Even with extraordinary care his lifespan wasn't going to be long.
    2) The state could argue a compelling interest in his case when the financial burden of caring for him was being shouldered by the taxpayer
    3) The minute a third party stepped in and offered to shoulder that burden, the state should have said "OK", and gotten the fuck out of the way
    4) Instead, the state thought it best to make this a precedent where it is the final arbiter of which lives are worth preserving/prolonging and which aren't.
    5) All men are endowed (not by the state) with the right to life. In the event that they are unable to exercise that right, it falls to their family, their appointed surrogates, or at last resort, the state to intervene on their behalf. The state, in this case, said that it was the final arbiter in the matter and everyone else had better get in line.
    6) The populace, after allowing itself to be deprived long ago of the means to do otherwise, gave a half-hearted angry "baaa" and got back in line.
    The state did not make this a precedent. There have been other instances like this, and in some cases the courts ruled in the parents' favour. Also, if people want to change this, they would have to change the law, as is done in civilised societies. Killing doctors or judges would not change a thing, other than bringing more grief.


    Quote Originally Posted by Draxil View Post
    My point about children and McDonald's wasn't a strawman. There are dozens of instances I can link to in that vein, in the UK and the US. If you start unloading parental rights and obligations on the government, at what point do you stop? It's a very slippery slope, and you can always justify just a little more government intervention. 200 lbs at age 10 is ridiculous. But if that's ridiculous, then why not 180? If 180, why not 150? Why not 145? 140? Cut-off point at 120? BMI greater than 26 or 90th percentile? What if you teach that evolution is hog-wash in your homeschooling? What if you don't teach sex ed? If you teach that birth control is immoral? That homosexuality is unnatural and sinful? That there is such a thing as immutable, biological sex and gender? That sin exists? That there is a God? Are these reasons for state intervention?
    If you're making a slippery slope argument, you better show how you are getting there every step of the way. Else it's a fallacy. Also, when the state takes away parental rights, the state is not taking the parental rights and obligations onto itself. If possible, custody is given to a relative instead. Otherwise, the child is placed into foster care.

    As for homeshooling, you are allowed to teach your child any nonsense you want, as you would be if your child went to a regular school. You can teach them that the Sun revolves around the Earth, if you like. But you also have to teach them about how the Solar System works according to the heliocentric theory.

    The parents' rights don't supersede the child's rights. As I said earlier, if the parent is harming the child and/or neglecting parental obligations, the state absolutely should intervene. This doesn't automatically mean taking away parental rights or that the state should intervene in every trivial case when a child comes to harm. The decisions are made on a case-by-case basis according to the law and courts consider first and foremost what is in the best interest of the child.


    Quote Originally Posted by Draxil View Post
    One man's terrorist etc. as your side frequently says when defending Islamic radicals. I'd say it's taking up arms against the state. Who better constitutes "the state" than an appointed judiciary? They're not subject to democratic recall, and are not accountable to the populace they are appointed to serve. There is no redress available to the Evans family. The state has deemed that their child isn't going to live, and is forbidding them from taking any measures to prolong his life. There's absolutely no justification for usurping their parental authority in this case. If it's willing to do this to a child, it's willing to do it to Grandpa. Then dad. Then a wife or sibling. You knock US citizens for living in an Orwellian surveillance state, but you defend that same surveillance state when it arbitrarily exercises its power in life and death decisions.

    Yeah. If I lived there, I'd say it's time to overthrow the state. I was at that point long before this decision, though. When the Lord Mayor of your most populous city declares that "there's no reason to carry a knife", and that all men are subject to arbitrary searches by the police, then you know you're living in a totalitarian state. When your government refuses to let you own arms, you live in a totalitarian state, no matter how benevolent. The Evans affair was an instance of the totalitarian state testing its boundaries. Apparently there aren't any boundaries. And there's no point that is "too much" for the subjects of the UK.
    The UK is not "arbitrarily exercising its power in life and death decisions" though. In UK, things are based on law. According to the doctors, keeping the child alive would have been unkind and inhumane, especially as there was no hope for recovery or improvement. Quite the opposite, in fact.

    As for arms, you are allowed to own them in the UK, and many people do. Gun control doesn't mean that you can't own guns. The stop and search policy is nonsense, though, and the London mayor was wrong in proposing it. But, the US also has (had) similar policies, though. Did you go shoot up the New York law enforcement when they had stop and frisk? And your president is arguing for bringing it back. Will you go assassinate him when he puts it in place again?

    Finally, we have had your version of society before. All that brought were blood feuds and a cycle of violence. If you can just go kill a judge that didn't rule in your favour, what's to stop the judge's relatives from taking revenge on your family?
    Last edited by Starker; 28th Apr 2018 at 13:35.

Page 23 of 26 FirstFirst ... 3813181920212223242526 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •