ID Cards - Xenophobia?

[SciFiBoy!]

The simplest way for me to put it is that I think each individual is responsible for themselves, not for the wider community. If everyone was to take that responsibility seriously we'd have a hell of a lot less talking, a lot more doing and everyone would be better off because people's lives would be what they had made them. They couldn't take the easy option and blame others. Many people wouldn't be better off financially I'll give you that, but then the wealth of people in this country is a facade anyway. The government borrows to pay benefts, individuals borrow to buy luxuries - If consumption was taxed instead of income there would be real incentives to work, because you would lead a very basic existence if you didn't.

which brings me onto your "basic set of rights". Yes - food, shelter, healthcare and access to employment are basic rights. However, cars, plasma TV's, Sky+ and foriegn holidays aren't, contrary to the beliefs of a lot of Britons...

"It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious, or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. Government should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from aggression on the part of others, and the moment governmental prohibitions extend beyond this line they are in danger of defeating the very ends they are intended to serve." – Henry George

WRT Guns, criminals can obtain guns now - they're illegal but what do they care? They use them to commit other illegal acts such as robbery and murder. So the police have guns to fight crime... Criminals have guns to commit crimes... The only people who can't have guns are law abiding members of the public. I'd use the same argument I would for drugs, that legalisation and regulation is far safer than creating a black market.

so you have no defence of the fact that most people who do most jobs wouldnt be able to get treatment if ill or send there kids to school?

i never said things like Sky TV were basic rights, you also seem to think poor people are much better off than they really are, the average wage is only 22k, and that goes down further if you factor out the top 5% or so.

america, they have legal guns, they also have school shootings, if your kid is at that school, you still gonna say, its there right to carry a gun?

drugs when legal arent designed for you to use them to kill others, guns are, big, big difference, you shoot up, only person liable to get hurt is you, you shoot at, you harm others, which is why guns should be illegal, drugs should be legal. you have the right to do what you like to yourself, not to do what you like to others, otherwise we may just aswell legalise rape, i mean, theres a "black market" in rape too technically.

im all for personal freedom, but to the point where there is no law and people can go around killing each other with no fear of reprimand?

anarchy dosent work, we arent cavemen anymore.

 

[shira]

you shoot up, only person liable to get hurt is you,

********. Sorry.

When you take some drugs, you lose control of yourself, causing you to possibly attack others.

If drugs were legal, someone was stoned/high and driving, they are quite likely to crash into others. That's why we aren't allowed to drink and drive (It still happens though).

(Also notice, a drunk person hurts others. When, in your logic, they only hurt thier own liver).

 

[Yuvie]

ID cards is another backward step regarding our relationship with foreign nationals and anyone else who wants to enter the country. I really just don't see the point of ID cards. It's just another money wasting 'smart' tactic used by the government.

I guess the next step for this country is a secret police service, checking whether we have ID cards or not. And if you don't? (Let's face it, it's likely to be some helpless immigrant worker that they pick on) I guess it's off to the shooting ground.

The BNP must be smiling amongst themselves.

 

[ayase]

so you have no defence of the fact that most people who do most jobs wouldnt be able to get treatment if ill or send there kids to school?

i never said things like Sky TV were basic rights, you also seem to think poor people are much better off than they really are, the average wage is only 22k, and that goes down further if you factor out the top 5% or so.

america, they have legal guns, they also have school shootings, if your kid is at that school, you still gonna say, its there right to carry a gun?

drugs when legal arent designed for you to use them to kill others, guns are, big, big difference, you shoot up, only person liable to get hurt is you, you shoot at, you harm others, which is why guns should be illegal, drugs should be legal. you have the right to do what you like to yourself, not to do what you like to others, otherwise we may just aswell legalise rape, i mean, theres a "black market" in rape too technically.

im all for personal freedom, but to the point where there is no law and people can go around killing each other with no fear of reprimand?

anarchy dosent work, we arent cavemen anymore.

I suggest you read that website again, or read back through some of the things I've written. I do not believe people should be denied healthcare. I do not believe in total anarchy or that people should have the right to rape, murder or in any other way directly harm others. That is the one thing we most definately do need government and laws for. Other than that it's a probability game - so you make guns illegal 'cause there's a chance someone might get shot. There's a chance you could run someone over when you drive a car. There's a chance (as Spyro points out) you could assault someone whilst drunk or high - Do we make all these things illegal too in order to decrease the probability of these things happening? Pretty soon that kind of thinking leads us into Brave New World territory (or in a similar fashion, perhaps the New World of Light Yagami) where everybody feels happy and safe, but nobody is free.

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

You'll have to excuse me if I'm starting to sound pretensious as I've had a few drinks myself (watch out! I'm gonna kill somebody Spyro! ) and am in somewhat of a quoting mood.

 

[CitizenGeek]

not about religion?

why do you think Isreal was created and is backed by the US?

Because the world felt sorry for Jews at the time and American Jewry are exceptionally powerful in the U.S. because they are very wealthy. The Jews are a race of people first of all.

the land they take is also because there religion says they have rights to it, what do you think the zionist movement is about?

It's not just that they have religious rights to the land, it's also to do with the fact Zionism has always claimed the land of Israel belonged to the Jews and should belong to the Jews again. Many atheists are Zionists, including David Milliband, which shows it's obviously not about religion.

 

[SciFiBoy!]

not about religion?

why do you think Isreal was created and is backed by the US?

Because the world felt sorry for Jews at the time and American Jewry are exceptionally powerful in the U.S. because they are very wealthy. The Jews are a race of people first of all.

the land they take is also because there religion says they have rights to it, what do you think the zionist movement is about?

It's not just that they have religious rights to the land, it's also to do with the fact Zionism has always claimed the land of Israel belonged to the Jews and should belong to the Jews again. Many atheists are Zionists, including David Milliband, which shows it's obviously not about religion.

judaism isnt a race, its a religion, that much should be obvious, hispanics are a race, jews arent, religion is in no way the same as race, you make an active choice to be religious, you have no control over your race, this should be obvious.

when you consider the facts above, you must then conclude that a non religous person cannnot be a zionist, as the two views are incompatable. my message to people like milliband is simple "your doing it wrong"

now, as there nation does now exist, im not gonna take that away from them, but, i think they should be happy with the land they were given, all these settlements and occupations are unacaptable imo, i think hamas are a vile organisation because of the way they deal with the situation, i belive a peacefull solution.

like i said, you cant be an atheist and a zionist, the two viewpoints are incompatable, an atheist would not belive that someones religon entitles them to land.

 

[SciFiBoy!]

so you have no defence of the fact that most people who do most jobs wouldnt be able to get treatment if ill or send there kids to school?

i never said things like Sky TV were basic rights, you also seem to think poor people are much better off than they really are, the average wage is only 22k, and that goes down further if you factor out the top 5% or so.

america, they have legal guns, they also have school shootings, if your kid is at that school, you still gonna say, its there right to carry a gun?

drugs when legal arent designed for you to use them to kill others, guns are, big, big difference, you shoot up, only person liable to get hurt is you, you shoot at, you harm others, which is why guns should be illegal, drugs should be legal. you have the right to do what you like to yourself, not to do what you like to others, otherwise we may just aswell legalise rape, i mean, theres a "black market" in rape too technically.

im all for personal freedom, but to the point where there is no law and people can go around killing each other with no fear of reprimand?

anarchy dosent work, we arent cavemen anymore.

I suggest you read that website again, or read back through some of the things I've written. I do not believe people should be denied healthcare. I do not believe in total anarchy or that people should have the right to rape, murder or in any other way directly harm others. That is the one thing we most definately do need government and laws for. Other than that it's a probability game - so you make guns illegal 'cause there's a chance someone might get shot. There's a chance you could run someone over when you drive a car. There's a chance (as Spyro points out) you could assault someone whilst drunk or high - Do we make all these things illegal too in order to decrease the probability of these things happening? Pretty soon that kind of thinking leads us into Brave New World territory (or in a similar fashion, perhaps the New World of Light Yagami) where everybody feels happy and safe, but nobody is free.

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

You'll have to excuse me if I'm starting to sound pretensious as I've had a few drinks myself (watch out! I'm gonna kill somebody Spyro! ) and am in somewhat of a quoting mood.

the only reason to buy a gun is to kill, most people dont buy cars or drugs to kill, thats the difference, one is designed soley for murder, the others arent, talk about most anything that isnt designed soley as a deadly weapon, id probably agree it should be legal, you have to draw the line somewhere imo, and this is where i draw it.

im reading that site now btw

welfare: dosent sound much different to now, other than tightening loopholes. ill get on to taxes in a moment.

healthcare: sounds alot like a two tier system to me, the rich get a nice state of the art expensive private hospital, the poor get a not for profit one thats barely maintaned due to lack of financial support from the government, and they dont seem to be clear on what they would do with parts of the NHS they dont sell off to create that system. what healthcare you get shouldnt be dependent on your earnings, there system sounds wholey unfair in that respect.

educaiton: same problem, most people could only afford the lower quality, lower funded not for profit schools, a two tier system in these things isnt fair on most people, this is not a nation of millionares, the average wage is only 22k a year.

immigration: so much for your freedom of movement idea, so theyd only let in people from approved nations, great, so what about refugees? or would we let them die because they come flee corrupt nations who we dont like?

transport: no mention of public transport or green targets? how will the poor who you dont think are entitled to cars will get around? how do you plan to tackle climate change?

ecenomy: Reccesion, were in one because the free markets failed, but i guess you dont care as its the poor who suffer (losing jobs and stuff). lack of regulation is what caused so many problems here, we let the financial sector do what it liked, they got greedy and failed, now we have to pay for there mistakes with our jobs. and abolishing the minimum wage is stupid. under there system, we would have a dictatorship of money, where the rich decide what the poor get and what the poor earn.
the private sector has 0 accountability, especially to the poor, the private sectors primary aim is allways profit, not fairness.

enviroment: i cant find anything on there site about it, at all, really, whats up with that?

taxesas they seem to hate pretty much all taxes, ill explain why we need taxes) like ive said before, taxes are needed to for policies that will make the country more fair and equal, im in favour of a more proggressive taxation system myself, so you can still earn more in better jobs, but you also pay more to help out the less fortunate and to pay for better public services and investment in renewable energy and so on.

 

[deactivated]

To have the right to a gun is to have the right to kill.

 

[CitizenGeek]

judaism isnt a race, its a religion, that much should be obvious, hispanics are a race, jews arent, religion is in no way the same as race, you make an active choice to be religious, you have no control over your race, this should be obvious.

Please tell me you were joking about going into politics? If you really believe that the Jews aren't an ethnic race of people, then you are exceptionally ignorant. I actually feel stupid explaining this to you, but the Jews are a race of people. The religion goes with the race often times, but there are Christian Jews and atheist Jews (like the aforementioned David Milliband). You can't just dismiss the entire Israel-Palestine conflict as being inherently stupid because it's all about religion. It isn't, religion is just a superficial factor in that situation.

like i said, you cant be an atheist and a zionist, the two viewpoints are incompatable, an atheist would not belive that someones religon entitles them to land.

But the Jews aren't saying they have a religious entitlement to that land, really. They are saying that their race had this land in the past and that it ought to be returned to them. It would be like ethnic Irish people saying that they have a claim on the parts of Northern Ireland that are populated by ethnic Scots, which would be a bit silly given how long those Scots have been there but it isn't entirely ridiculous.

 

[SciFiBoy!]

judaism isnt a race, its a religion, that much should be obvious, hispanics are a race, jews arent, religion is in no way the same as race, you make an active choice to be religious, you have no control over your race, this should be obvious.

Please tell me you were joking about going into politics? If you really believe that the Jews aren't an ethnic race of people, then you are exceptionally ignorant. I actually feel stupid explaining this to you, but the Jews are a race of people. The religion goes with the race often times, but there are Christian Jews and atheist Jews (like the aforementioned David Milliband). You can't just dismiss the entire Israel-Palestine conflict as being inherently stupid because it's all about religion. It isn't, religion is just a superficial factor in that situation.

like i said, you cant be an atheist and a zionist, the two viewpoints are incompatable, an atheist would not belive that someones religon entitles them to land.

But the Jews aren't saying they have a religious entitlement to that land, really. They are saying that their race had this land in the past and that it ought to be returned to them. It would be like ethnic Irish people saying that they have a claim on the parts of Northern Ireland that are populated by ethnic Scots, which would be a bit silly given how long those Scots have been there but it isn't entirely ridiculous.

well, ive only ever heard or seen them refered to in religous terms, even then, your race doesnt entitle you to land, otherwise anyone could just claim land because theyre are more people of there ethnicity in the area, or theyve been there for longer, cant make the world work like that, causes way, way too many problems.

well, by there logic, anyone can claim any land theyve ever occupied, i mean if its based on who was there the longest time ago, then we should give all land back to the animals really and then ask for permission to live with them, i mean if thats how we decide these things now?

 

[ayase]

I kinda wanna reply but... I can't be arsed. Sorry guys, stuff to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_jew

 

[CitizenGeek]

well, ive only ever heard or seen them refered to in religous terms

I doubt it. You've probably just presumed it was in religious terms.

even then, your race doesnt entitle you to land, otherwise anyone could just claim land because theyre are more people of there ethnicity in the area, or theyve been there for longer, cant make the world work like that, causes way, way too many problems.

Of course you can. The ethnic Kurds in Iraq and Turkey and Iran claim some land in those countries is theirs, and it is. The ethnic Timorese claimed East Timor was theirs, and it was. Bosniaks claimed part of Serbia was theirs (Kosovo) and it is.

Besides, it's not like the Jews just arbitrarily decided that 2,000 years later they sort of, kind of wanted the land of Israel back. Jews have always been longing for their homeland to be returned to them. Every race deserves their own homeland; I can't imagine how awful it would be if Ireland, my country, was occupied by another race and I had no stake in it at all. Just imagine how awful it must be to be without a homeland, especially when no one else wants you. I mean, Jewish history is filled with the most horrific acts of cruelty, the Holocaust is but the most recent example of this.

well, by there logic, anyone can claim any land theyve ever occupied, i mean if its based on who was there the longest time ago, then we should give all land back to the animals really and then ask for permission to live with them, i mean if thats how we decide these things now?

Eh, grow up.

 

[SciFiBoy!]

well, ive only ever heard or seen them refered to in religous terms

I doubt it. You've probably just presumed it was in religious terms.

even then, your race doesnt entitle you to land, otherwise anyone could just claim land because theyre are more people of there ethnicity in the area, or theyve been there for longer, cant make the world work like that, causes way, way too many problems.

Of course you can. The ethnic Kurds in Iraq and Turkey and Iran claim some land in those countries is theirs, and it is. The ethnic Timorese claimed East Timor was theirs, and it was. Bosniaks claimed part of Serbia was theirs (Kosovo) and it is.

Besides, it's not like the Jews just arbitrarily decided that 2,000 years later they sort of, kind of wanted the land of Israel back. Jews have always been longing for their homeland to be returned to them. Every race deserves their own homeland; I can't imagine how awful it would be if Ireland, my country, was occupied by another race and I had no stake in it at all. Just imagine how awful it must be to be without a homeland, especially when no one else wants you. I mean, Jewish history is filled with the most horrific acts of cruelty, the Holocaust is but the most recent example of this.

well, by there logic, anyone can claim any land theyve ever occupied, i mean if its based on who was there the longest time ago, then we should give all land back to the animals really and then ask for permission to live with them, i mean if thats how we decide these things now?

Eh, grow up.

yeah, but youre wrong though, land dosent "belong" to anyone, no matter how long youve been there, someone else has been there longer or before you, how old is the planet now?

this is why we should have an entirely free and open planet, where anyone can live anywhere in peace, rather than the mess we have atm, so yes, they can live there if they want, but not by invasion and occupation, but because the arabs can live there too and the arabs or even the irish can live in jerusalem if they want, thats what we should aspire too.

 

[CitizenGeek]

Well if you can't even get the most basic of fundamentals in this argument right (that the Jews are a race of people first and foremost) then I'm not really interested in having this discussion with you.

 

[shira]

You'll have to excuse me if I'm starting to sound pretensious as I've had a few drinks myself (watch out! I'm gonna kill somebody Spyro! ) and am in somewhat of a quoting mood.

If you're trying to say that the effects of alcahol dont make you more likely to commit an offense, or to accidentally kill, then you would be really quite dull, Ayase

 

[SciFiBoy!]

Well if you can't even get the most basic of fundamentals in this argument right (that the Jews are a race of people first and foremost) then I'm not really interested in having this discussion with you.

forgive me for not knowing that, but my knowledge is human and therefore imperfect, this i have learnt to live with, so yes i make mistakes, we all do.

if you really want to leave the debate without addressing my latest points, then thats up to you.

 

[CitizenGeek]

Your 'latest point' was that "races aren't entitled to land because animals were there before, etc." which is a stupid argument to make, obviously. If you think races aren't entitled to their homelands, then explain why you think it's so. Saying "you're wrong" and simply repeating the statement over and over again doesn't advance your wholly juvenile argument at all.

 

[SciFiBoy!]

Your 'latest point' was that "races aren't entitled to land because animals were there before, etc." which is a stupid argument to make, obviously. If you think races aren't entitled to their homelands, then explain why you think it's so. Saying "you're wrong" and simply repeating the statement over and over again doesn't advance your wholly juvenile argument at all.

how is it juvenile? and how do you define homeland? and what if a new race starts to become prevalant in that land?

 

[CitizenGeek]

It's juvenile because you're being absurdly 'idealistic' stating that "there should be no homeland because land doesn't belong to anyone".

A homeland is obviously anywhere a collective of people call home and have historically called home.

If a new race invades the homeland of another race and claims it's their own, then obviously that's not right. If French people invaded England and claimed it was theirs, became "prevalent" in England or whatever, would be a-ok with that?

 

[SciFiBoy!]

It's juvenile because you're being absurdly 'idealistic' stating that "there should be no homeland because land doesn't belong to anyone".

A homeland is obviously anywhere a collective of people call home and have historically called home.

If a new race invades the homeland of another race and claims it's their own, then obviously that's not right. If French people invaded England and claimed it was theirs, became "prevalent" in England or whatever, would be a-ok with that?

where in history is the line you draw though?

keep going back and eventually it becomes someone elses homeland, then someone elses and so on and so forth

if for England the line is drawn at 1066, then why in Jerusalem is it drawn at 250BC?

problem is such a system of assigning land is doomed to cause conflict, because its inconsistent, if we draw the line at one date, the land belongs to the Arabs, without question according to your system, pick another date it belongs to the Jews, another and it belongs to the Eqyptians, you see the problem?

by your logic all 3 can claim the land as theres, and technically using your logic, you have every right to invade Northern Ireland, on the basis that at one point in history it was your race's homeland.

what im explaining to you is why we have conflict in the world, because people think they have some sort of right to certain land, if we remove nations and make movement of people free, it significantly reduces the likelyhood of war, humanity is better united than divided. our common goal should be to make a fairer, more equal, free world, so we can solve the majour problems together as a species, poverty, global warming, together we could go along way to fixing them, divided we may never fix thoose problems.

oh and i belive this can be acheived through diplomacy, we just need to convince people of this idealogy and no violence is needed. im suggesting this to avoid violence, not to create it.