Man opens fire on Dutch tram, several hurt

Soldato
Joined
18 Jun 2010
Posts
6,574
Location
Essex
Arbitrary freedoms, both can be discussion in the same senses as free citizens of the world, a right wing world is that which all about the freedom of individuals I should remind AGAIN.

Moaning about a freedom that a minority abuse is literally the same as moaning about another freedom for the same reason. Only those who wish to frustrate the freedoms of people in an unbalanced manner would disagree.

You would agree that the freedom to say whatever you like is important, it was not so for all of human history, freedom to move is an extension of it id argue.
I don't see how they're related really they seem entirely separate things. Allowing people the freedom to move between different judicial systems with no checks, and with different economies, seems to have a far larger impact than freedom of speech does. Allowing freedom of movement between 28 different economies is a capitalists wet dream.

Isolate the UK for a moment, why do people hoard around London? Money. There are ways to get money legally and illegally there. The majority of the wealth is there, so people move there from up north, scotland, wales, etc etc. Moving workers out of the towns from wherever they came from. How do we pay for the pensioners and benefit claimants in those towns left behind? We tax people and spread it all around the country. Therefore it's fair that London steals all the workers from various towns because we distribute the wealth out of London with taxation.

Now open it up between countries, and people flock to the countries where there is money, to get that money legally or illegally. In the EU countries have different economies and different social benefits. There are state pensions etc. If Country X pays more money than Country Y with better social benefits for the same work and with a better quality of life, and there is no restriction of you moving from Y to X. You'll go and do your job in X. Well what about the economy of the country you leave behind? What about the public infrastructure of what you leave behind? What about the state pension for all the pensioners you leave behind? They're screwed. The EU would eventually resort to the plan that the nations do at a national level, that is: progressively tax based on wealth and distribute it out. The rich EU countries will be taxed more to pay for the poorer ones. And why not just save money and move all national pension schemes into an EU wide one? Why not put all defence and public spending into an EU wide one? And there's your Federal EU Super State, which you might be ok with the idea of. I personally don't like the idea of it but hey-ho. The EU with it's freedom of movement is acting as one large nation. And it will become one. I think it is perfectly valid to decide you don't want to become part of it. I also want the money I lose in taxation spend as locally as possible.

So that's one problem of freedom of movement. Have you got one for freedom of speech? People get their feelings hurt? Ouch. People hear opinions different to their own? Ouch. People actually don't feel ashamed to say what they really want to say? Ouch. People can say what they want without fear of losing their job because a bunch of unemployed people on twitter heard it and are 'outraged' and there's a BBC article which is literally just full of twitter embeds of unemployed people crying? Sounds good.

They are separate things, they have different valid criticisms, and the cases for removing one is not really transferable to the other. One is a freedom of the mind, the other is a political right. They are completely different things.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Jun 2010
Posts
6,574
Location
Essex
You would agree that the freedom to say whatever you like is important, it was not so for all of human history and indeed in many parts of the world still, freedom to move is an extension of it id argue. If also argue that in the future such a freedom will be fundamental and this ‘discussion’ will be just as farcical.
Then please do argue it because I really can't see the connection between them.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,747
I disagree, it would appear to me that it is freedom of the mind to locate themselves at any arbitrary location on this loathsome rock, it is just as valid as vocalising some arbitrary sentences in an arbitrary language.

Indeed we limit such things based on the redline of violence in perhaps both situations, it would be gross to allow freedom of movement with a country you are at war with, understandably. (Excluding refugees)

If one is to moan about people criticising the speech shown by some belligerents, but then find it loathsome when it happens against their criticism of another right, that is perhaps bad faith.
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Apr 2006
Posts
17,959
Location
London
And so the cycle continues.

I said it in the NZ thread before it got nuked. I hate being right. However before it was only one sided where most attacks were Islamic and now it's tit-for-tat between the two extremes, it almost feels like the Irish troubles all over again
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
48,796
Location
All over the world...
Man what a terrible past few days, first the NZ mosque attacks now this attack in Utrecht.

Sometimes I wonder what the hell we humans are doing to each other :(.

RIP to the ones who lost their lives in another needless attack in innocents :(.
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Aug 2010
Posts
5,798
Hopefully rumours turn out to be true and this was actually a domestic rather than a tit-for-tat between terrorist extremist nutters.

''Sweary''

Ehhh ??

Obviously I know the answer to that quote :p
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,747
Yet the conservative pm of Australia, sides entirely with the boy.

When even your remotely connected allies don’t like you, maybe there’s a reason.

Hopefully people just buy durian fruit and make a horrific concoction out of it to throw next time, just banter innit.
 
Soldato
Joined
10 May 2012
Posts
10,058
Location
Leeds
Yet the conservative pm of Australia, sides entirely with the boy.

When even your remotely connected allies don’t like you, maybe there’s a reason.

Hopefully people just buy durian fruit and make a horrific concoction out of it to throw next time, just banter innit.

If he's as bad as you say he is, then it's EASY to oppose his views without hitting him with anything. Just debate him and ridicule his opinions with words.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,747
If he's as bad as you say he is, then it's EASY to oppose his views without hitting him with anything. Just debate him and ridicule his opinions with words.

Doesn’t work anymore. If it ever did. A distinct lack of education and a distinct lack of empathy is involved.

Violence is all that’s left.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
14,691
Yet the conservative pm of Australia, sides entirely with the boy.

When even your remotely connected allies don’t like you, maybe there’s a reason.
From what I saw on Reddit (although I can’t find the post now) Fraser Anning (the guy who was egged) is quite a piece of work. Here’s the gist of what that post said*:

  • He is the senator for Queensland (the most racsist Aussie state).
  • He was appointed on a technicality, standing for a racist party.
  • He then sat as independent because the party wasn’t racist enough.
  • His previous party kicked him out for being too racist.
  • More Queensland citizens signed the petition to have him removed from office than voted to appoint him.
  • Apparently he wasn’t going to get re-elected before his letter/egging, but this has just confirmed that he will be out of office in May.
When two racist parties cut ties with you because views are too extreme, and your racist constituents think you’re too racist, maybe it’s time to rethink things…

*Disclaimer* the above is my fuzzy memory of a random Reddit post. I can’t guarantee that everything is 100% factual. I just thought it was funny that this guy is considered too racist by some pretty racist racists.
 
Soldato
Joined
10 May 2012
Posts
10,058
Location
Leeds
So he said:

"I am utterly opposed to any form of violence within out community, and I totally condemn the actions of the gunman," he wrote.

"However, whilst this kind of violent vigilantism can never be justified, what it highlights is the growing fear within our community, both in Australia and New Zealand, of the increasing Muslim presence."

I think he's way off the mark and 99.999% of people do not share those views, and I don't think the attack is an indication of the views of the wider public, but the statement (while essentially being incorrect) isn't racist in my view, unless he said more than I managed to find.
 
Caporegime
Joined
24 Oct 2012
Posts
25,056
Location
Godalming
When you guys are done bickering please ensure you clean up all your handbags so those of us who wish to express our condolences towards those who have needlessly lost their lives can do so without faceplanting on your Primark tat. Thanks.
 
Back
Top Bottom