philosophy professor banned under new hate laws

[Bob_the_lost]

I'm not the one calling for people to be banned, Bob.

Dear God. Have you heard of apartheid, Bob? Do you really think it was wrong to wrong to use violence against it?

Incidentally, I don't like this very much:

violence/destruction of property

Do you really think they're comparable? Can you not tell the difference between breaking a window and breaking a skull? Do you really think that somebody who damages property is a "terrorist"? Do you have any idea what sort of regimes have used the term "terrorist" as widely as that?

And what would you say if terrorists destroyed the UK's power grid?

So no defintion then?

 

[tobyjug]

Do you have any idea what sort of regimes have used the term "terrorist" as widely as that?

The current British government.

 

[In Bloom]

"We are a threat both economically and philosophically."

You threaten someone so you can be thier friend don't you!

Erm, economically and philosophically threatening someone hardly constitutes terrorism. All it means is that if the ALF get their way, their opponents will lose money and look kind of silly.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

And what would you say if terrorists destroyed the UK's power grid?

Eh? Where did you get that from? How's that an answer to any of those questions?

So no defintion then?

No. You invoked the term, I did not. You like to throw it about, I do not.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Eh? Where did you get that from? How's that an answer to any of those questions?

No. You invoked the term, I did not. You like to throw it about, I do not.

We do. But in order to debate it properly you have to be able to define your terms a bit more tightly and a bit more accurately than you have.

And so while you object to my definition you fail to provide your own, you rubished something without providing a better solution. No more discussion with you untill you provide one (i know it's breaking your heart).

 

[sihhi]

The current British government.

I think he means for example Soviet Union Politbureau on Hungary 1956.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

And so while you object to my definition you fail to provide your own, you rubished something without providing a better solution. No more discussion with you untill you provide one (i know it's breaking your heart).

I'm gutted, yes. Particualarly because I explained more than once why I don't define terrorism as a term. It's not honest to ignore explanations like that, son.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I'm gutted, yes. Particualarly because I explained more than once why I don't define terrorism as a term. It's not honest to ignore explanations like that, son.

If you don't know what a word means you can't use it. So either we carry this discussion out without using the word or it's meaningless babble.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

If you don't know what a word means you can't use it. So either we carry this discussion out without using the word or it's meaningless babble.

It's because some terms are of their nature indefinable that they are not suitable terms on which to base legislation.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

It's because some terms are of their nature indefinable that they are not suitable terms on which to base legislation.

I'm not going to ignore you, but i'm not going to talk to you either as it's a waste of time.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I'm inconsolable.

A glance at this thread will put you quite a long way ahead on the "failure to answer questions" count, by the way.

 

[Loki]

(b) involves serious damage to property,

A kid wrecked my car and stole my speakers once. Orf with his head! Bloody terrorists.

(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action

Speeding drivers take note!

(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public

Well that's the execs of every major supermarket chain deported to Guantanamo then, for flogging products causing food poisoning

Fuck me, we're all going to prison!

 

[kea]

It covers threatening to picket a waterworks...

you've got to haven't you, otherwise you'd just explode ...

 

[Kid_Eternity]

And we were so busy cheering we didn't notice them taking us away to....

We?

 

[MikeMcc]

So one should be banned for advocating breaking the law? Dear God, man, what country do you want to live in?

Preferably one without body-snatching monsters or those that think that they are justified to fire-bomb companies, forcing people out of work because their company has carried out work for HLS.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Preferably one without body-snatching monsters or those that think that they are justified to fire-bomb companies, forcing people out of work because their company has carried out work for HLS.

And does this chap support either of those activities?

 

[Sorry.]

Did mandela advocate violence/destruction of property? If so yes he should/would have been excluded.

You don't see the legitimacy of violence in the face of oppression?
What bestows legitimacy on violence then?

 

[Kid_Eternity]

You don't see the legitimacy of violence in the face of oppression?
What bestows legitimacy on violence then?

How are animal rights activists being oppressed?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

You don't see the legitimacy of violence in the face of oppression?
What bestows legitimacy on violence then?

Not here in the UK no.
God does?

 

[kea]

We?

you haven't read the thread properly, have you.

 

[Sorry.]

Not here in the UK no.

In Apartheid South Africa

God does?

Come on, you're in the army, you must have had a quick think about this.

 

[kea]

Come on, you're in the army,

is he? i must have missed that.

 

[HarrisonSlade]

He should be allowed to voice his opinions, I agree. I find the ALF evil but would never stop anyone from voicing their opinions anywhere. That is why, even though he's an evil Nazi bastard, I would support the lifting of the ban against Louis Farrakhan too.

 

[Sorry.]

How are animal rights activists being oppressed?

Read the whole conversation.

the people: why should this bloke be excluded
b the l: because he advocates terrorism
the people: should we have excluded mandela?
b the l: yes, if he advocated terrorism
the people: so you don't think violence is legitimate in the face of oppression.
etc.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

is he? i must have missed that.

TA, but yes i have thought about it.

It's a tricky one, but i'd say it's legitimate if a democratic body votes for it. But it's not that easy or simple, case by case works best for me.

 

[Sorry.]

It's a tricky one, but i'd say it's legitimate if a democratic body votes for it. But it's not that easy or simple, case by case works best for me.

So many questions...

What if one democratic body is attacking another?
What do you define as a democratic body? A state?
What about self-defence?
What happens when freedom of association is suppressed and it becomes impossible to convene a democratic body to sanction violence?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

So many questions...

What if one democratic body is attacking another?
What do you define as a democratic body? A state?
What about self-defence?
What happens when freedom of association is suppressed and it becomes impossible to convene a democratic body to sanction violence?

Give me a situation in the UK those problems are real, otherwise you're going off topic and i don't really care.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Give me a situation in the UK those problems are real

Like terrorists disabling the power grid, one supposes.

 

[kea]

ok i reckon this loon has derailed this thread long enough. he clearly hasn't got a clear and coherent argument.
so - back to my original questions: has anyone heard of this guy before or got any more info on his views/involvement/background? what do people make of this in general? how does this action by the government compare to the arguments they were putting forward about how the the legislation would be used before it was passed?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

ok i reckon this loon has derailed this thread long enough. he clearly hasn't got a clear and coherent argument.
so - back to my original questions: has anyone heard of this guy before or got any more info on his views/involvement/background? what do people make of this in general? how does this action by the government compare to the arguments they were putting forward about how the the legislation would be used before it was passed?

Me? Derailed the thread? Take that and shove it where the sun don't shine. I'm just not wasting time on Donna since we can't even agree on what language we are using.

If you don't like people telling you that you are wrong then life must be hard for you. If he adocates terrorism, then he shouldn't be allowed into the UK.