Repeat after me: "I don't live in a police state" (UK)

[RabidMongoose]

its well known that britain is the most locked down police state next to danville california. in london they literally have cameras filming everything that occurs 24/7, which is almost as bad as danville having cops on every corner giving traffic tickets

It's a difference in culture. The British people have a need of an Overlord. That's why they have a Queen and cameras everywhere, because the people there accept a peasant-monarch type of caste system and it requires dominion over them. The peasants should be recorded, but the monarchy isn't recorded in the same way.

 

[HAL9000]

It's a difference in culture. The British people have a need of an Overlord. That's why they have a Queen and cameras everywhere, because the people there accept a peasant-monarch type of caste system and it requires dominion over them. The peasants should be recorded, but the monarchy isn't recorded in the same way.

We've been through this. You don't know what a peasant is.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

Do you live around here? I live right next to Danville D:

yeah i have a house in blackhawk but most of the week i live in downtown sf

 

[OBLAMA2009]

It's a difference in culture. The British people have a need of an Overlord. That's why they have a Queen and cameras everywhere, because the people there accept a peasant-monarch type of caste system and it requires dominion over them. The peasants should be recorded, but the monarchy isn't recorded in the same way.

agreed, the british society/culture is pathetic and awful, almost as bad as american

 

[HAL9000]

agreed, the british society/culture is pathetic and awful

It's only pathetic and awful in so much as all societies are.

It's better than American society / culture. We are more free over here.

 

[davmat787]

It's better than American society / culture. We are more free over here.

That is a very bold statement to make without providing any details. Assuming you aren't making it just to rile up the crowd as per your usual modus operandi, what are basing this assertion on?

 

[schneiderguy]

It's better than American society / culture. We are more free over here.

 

[HAL9000]

That is a very bold statement to make without providing any details. Assuming you aren't making it just to rile up the crowd as per your usual modus operandi, what are basing this assertion on?

I'm asserting it based on some of the things I've already said in this thread, free health care. We have a lot more "freedoms from" rather than "freedoms to" which we value higher, freedom from hate speech, freedom from getting shot etc etc. We also have proper gay rights, we have a better system of free speech, we have all-sorts of other rights that Americans don't have.

 

[Triumph]

It's a difference in culture. The British people have a need of an Overlord. That's why they have a Queen and cameras everywhere, because the people there accept a peasant-monarch type of caste system and it requires dominion over them. The peasants should be recorded, but the monarchy isn't recorded in the same way.

This is what I have thought for a while, too. Britanians are used to relinquishing authority to a higher power, that's why they're ok with constant monitoring. America was founded on the principle of giving the middle finger to this kind of establishment.

 

[RabidMongoose]

agreed, the british society/culture is pathetic and awful, almost as bad as american

No, it's much worse than American society. With the British, we're talking about a culture and society that actually accepts a caste system. That's pretty messed up. These people worship an inbred human being similar to ancient humans worshiping the sun.

It's this type of behavior that actively promoted the peasant mindset of the British people. For them, it's acceptable to have their every peasant action recorded. But the same would never happen to the royal caste. In the UK, the peasants suffer because they have this mindset that makes them be more docile and easily controlled by the upper caste.

 

[RabidMongoose]

This is what I have thought for a while, too. Britanians are used to relinquishing authority to a higher power, that's why they're ok with constant monitoring. America was founded on the principle of giving the middle finger to this kind of establishment.

Pretty much. Most of the world actually gives the middle finger to a caste system establishment, but I think that most British peasants would have no idea what to do if they didn't subject themselves to a monarch caste. I think that they would probably be OK if they throw down the shackles of peasantdom, but to be below an inbred family is actually so built into the British psyche that they can't imagine a life without an overlord. As such, since they seek a need to be controlled and to not be free, they accept things like cameras recording peasants and such.

 

[HAL9000]

No, it's much worse than American society. With the British, we're talking about a culture and society that actually accepts a caste system. That's pretty messed up. These people worship an inbred human being similar to ancient humans worshiping the sun.

It's this type of behavior that actively promoted the peasant mindset of the British people. For them, it's acceptable to have their every peasant action recorded. But the same would never happen to the royal caste. In the UK, the peasants suffer because they have this mindset that makes them be more docile and easily controlled by the upper caste.

...

We've been through this. You don't know what a peasant is.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I'm asserting it based on some of the things I've already said in this thread, free health care. We have a lot more "freedoms from" rather than "freedoms to" which we value higher, freedom from hate speech, freedom from getting shot etc etc. We also have proper gay rights, we have a better system of free speech, we have all-sorts of other rights that Americans don't have.

This is great brainwashing. You also have the freedom to never be your head of state. You also have the freedom to have your government discriminate against racial and religious minorities. You have the freedom to be forced to pay for an inbred family. You have the freedom of being forced to have your head of state and other government officials be officials of a particular religious group and so forth.

British peasants are ridiculous.

 

[HAL9000]

This is great brainwashing. You also have the freedom to never be your head of state. You also have the freedom to have your government discriminate against racial and religious minorities. You have the freedom to be forced to pay for an inbred family. You have the freedom of being forced to have your head of state and other government officials be officials of a particular religious group and so forth.

British peasants are ridiculous.

..

We've been through this. You don't know what a peasant is.

 

[MovingTarget]

I'm asserting it based on some of the things I've already said in this thread, free health care. We have a lot more "freedoms from" rather than "freedoms to" which we value higher, freedom from hate speech, freedom from getting shot etc etc. We also have proper gay rights, we have a better system of free speech, we have all-sorts of other rights that Americans don't have.

From our perspective, institutionalizing a "freedom from" directly translates into restrictions of "freedom to". Freedom from hate speech --> lack of freedom to your own speech as an external authority decides what is acceptable. Freedom from getting shot --> lack of freedom to defend yourself from people and government alike. "Freedom to" is more abolute and guaranteed than "freedom from".

I really don't see your system of free speech as being superior. If anything, it is more restrictive, but we've already beaten that dead horse. On your other point of healthcare, you have us there. We're working on that. 😉

 

[HAL9000]

From our perspective, institutionalizing a "freedom from" directly translates into restrictions of "freedom to". Freedom from hate speech --> lack of freedom to your own speech as an external authority decides what is acceptable. Freedom from getting shot --> lack of freedom to defend yourself from people and government alike. "Freedom to" is more abolute and guaranteed than "freedom from".

I really don't see your system of free speech as being superior. If anything, it is more restrictive, but we've already beaten that dead horse. On your other point of healthcare, you have us there. We're working on that. 😉

THat's the problem, we value freedom from far higher, the ability to walk down the street and not get shot, not have to deal with the westboro baptist church is far far far more important than the freedom to walk down the street shouting "god hates fags" or to carry a gun.

In a country without guns theres no need to own a gun to defend yourself.

Also "defend yourself from government" WTF?! If you're needing to that, you're country is doing something wrong. You shouldn't be able to defend yourself with weapons against the police.

 

[Jaskalas]

I carry a 7" Kabar sometimes just because I can. I've never stabbed anyone and I never intend to.

You should be locked away, dangerous criminal!

State property is only to possess legally authorized state items purchased by state loyalty tokens. Party members get big knives, plebs do not.

 

[schneiderguy]

In a country without guns theres no need to own a gun to defend yourself.

There's no such thing as a country without guns.

You shouldn't be able to defend yourself with weapons against the police.

I think the Jews in 1930's Germany would disagree.

 

[HAL9000]

There's no such thing as a country without guns.

There's such a thing as a country where the possibility of encountering a gun is so remote it's not worth worrying about.

I think the Jews in 1930's Germany would disagree.

Good thing were not living in Nazi Germany isn't it?

 

[schneiderguy]

There's such a thing as a country where the possibility of encountering a gun is so remote it's not worth worrying about.

No there isn't.

Good thing were not living in Nazi Germany isn't it?

Nazi Germany started out as a democratically elected government.

 

[HAL9000]

No there isn't.

That's what most Americans think, that's why we are a more free nation than you are.

Nazi Germany started out as a democratically elected government.

That it did.

 

[MovingTarget]

THat's the problem, we value freedom from far higher, the ability to walk down the street and not get shot, not have to deal with the westboro baptist church is far far far more important than the freedom to walk down the street shouting "god hates fags" or to carry a gun.

In a country without guns theres no need to own a gun to defend yourself.

Also "defend yourself from government" WTF?! If you're needing to that, you're country is doing something wrong. You shouldn't be able to defend yourself with weapons against the police.

Despite the absurdity and offensiveness of the WBC's statement, who decides what is and is not offensive/banned speech? An unaccountable government? Where does this restriction stop? What other groups/statements would be banned simply because someone in a position of power deems them 'offensive'? Surely one would never have to defend themselves against their government.

Well, there was this one nation that we were controlled by from the other side of the pond that taught us that very valuable lesson. The UK is a country with guns - just mostly in the hands of the government. Citizens shouldn't be defenseless against their government. Sure, we don't have a current need to take up our arms against it, but it keeps them (somewhat) honest and gives us a real recourse should they cross the line and abuse its power on a large scale. When that day comes, we stand a much better chance than you.

 

[MovingTarget]

There's no such thing as a country without guns.



I think the Jews in 1930's Germany would disagree.

Damnit, I was typing up a response to this and Godwin's Law was triggered in the interim.

Could you have referenced the Arab Spring movements, the uprising attempts behind the Iron curtain, the revolutions of 1848....anything but the nazis?

 

[HAL9000]

Despite the absurdity and offensiveness of the WBC's statement, who decides what is and is not offensive/banned speech? An unaccountable government? Where does this restriction stop? What other groups/statements would be banned simply because someone in a position of power deems them 'offensive'? Surely one would never have to defend themselves against their government.

It's not offensive speech that is banned it is hate speech, and it is decided by elected officials representing the people.

Well, there was this one nation that we were controlled by from the other side of the pond that taught us that very valuable lesson. The UK is a country with guns - just mostly in the hands of the government. Citizens shouldn't be defenseless against their government. Sure, we don't have a current need to take up our arms against it, but it keeps them (somewhat) honest and gives us a real recourse should they cross the line and abuse its power on a large scale. When that day comes, we stand a much better chance than you.

The paranoia in this statement makes it not worth responding too and demonstrates how immature the USA is when it comes to gun ownership.

 

[Brigandier]

The paranoia in this statement makes it not worth responding too and demonstrates how immature the USA is when it comes to gun ownership.

I've always wondered...If you oppose individual firearm ownership, how can you grant that power to the collective? One moron cannot own a gun, but a lot of fucking morons can decide when guns are needed?

Humans don't get smarter as we congregate...