Western countries are becoming more orwellian

[NineSpine]

Yeah I dont know how they handle that, I'm probably against it.

I can only see it working in very obvious cases. Like if a suspect is claimed to have forced someone to sign over their house at gun point. Does the person deserve all the rights of its property owner? He would always have human rights, but giving due process regarding property rights to someone who never legally owned it is questionable.

But you still give them due process to defend against the charge that that is how they came to own the property. The problem with civil forfeiture is they skip that step.

[PC2]

But you still give them due process to defend against the charge that that is how they came to own the property. The problem with civil forfeiture is they skip that step.

Yeah apparently they dont need to charge the suspect first. They need to change the order in which they proceed. I have only heard of this issue a couple times, Ive heard a lot more bitching about eminent domain.

[Felya]

No I'm not worried about the Muslim counter arguments, the concern is that the state authority could protect their dogma from criticism.

That's why I said, unless it's a theocracy. In US, you are at far greater threat from authority protecting a different religion's dogma, than the Muslim one. In fact, the only time Muslim dogma attempted to be defended in court recently, was indirect. Because the same dogma of Lot that influences government's action towards gay marriage, is in the Khoran. It's the same exact parable... It's the same reason why Kim Davis, no longer is required to sign marriage licenses...

- - - Updated - - -

Constructive criticism maybe.
"Fucking nigger go back to africa" however, is not constructive criticism.

It shouldn't mater, because being offended or even if criticism is constructive, are subjective. I don't fear government or any of that sort, but I also recognize the sort of power subjective definitions give government. As soon as you enter a court room and the argument is no longer what you did, but if what you did fits a subjective opinion, game over. You have just given the government plausible deniability to do what ever they want.

[Caolela]

Lowering taxes increases your wage, it doesn't lower it.

We were talking about tax breaks for corporations and top incomes, not average incomes.

[Deleted]

That's why I said, unless it's a theocracy. In US, you are at far greater threat from authority protecting a different religion's dogma, than the Muslim one. In fact, the only time Muslim dogma attempted to be defended in court recently, was indirect. Because the same dogma of Lot that influences government's action towards gay marriage, is in the Khoran. It's the same exact parable... It's the same reason why Kim Davis, no longer is required to sign marriage licenses...

- - - Updated - - -



It shouldn't mater, because being offended or even if criticism is constructive, are subjective. I don't fear government or any of that sort, but I also recognize the sort of power subjective definitions give government. As soon as you enter a court room and the argument is no longer what you did, but if what you did fits a subjective opinion, game over. You have just given the government plausible deniability to do what ever they want.

Or you can simply not be a dick and avoid verbal harassment.

[Sama-81]

Democracy does not entail everyone being a free person. Only that the people pertaining in said democracy are allowed to cast votes.

You could still have Slaves, and allow them to vote. Thoose things do not contradict each other.

It's cute that you are trying to twist what i supposedly have a hard time grasping, whilst failing basic assertions of definitions to begin with.

And no, there is still nothing OBJECTIVELY aboherent, from a perspective of a modern Western democracy - perspectives are still based on Subjectives.

Even if something WOULD contradict the idea of Western Society, i.e directly violating their right to cast a vote - It would still not be OBJECTIVELY abhorent ; it would just cease to be a true entity of Democracy.

Societies are not entities that can hold emotional judgements such as Abhorent. And Abhorent is not a Objective value. If it is, please provide a value for it - Which you cannot, since it's Subjective.

You can keep trying to insist that i am wrong and stumble on your shoelaces, but i advice against it.

I stumble on my shoelaces? Are you serious? Did you actually READ your own post above?

Ok, lets go.
1) A western, modern society DOES entail everybody being free. I can not even understand how someone could possibly miss that fact, if born in the west. I'm guessing your inability to see that you are demonstrably wrong, is due to you still not being able to read what I write (ie NOT talking about a democracy, but a WESTERN, MODERN democracy).
2) Claiming that I fail to grasp basic assertions, while not even getting the above right - priceless. And not really cute at all, just...well, sad, really.
3) From the eyes of something with innate properties, properties which by the way aren't subjective in the least when the construct in question is built upon those properties being the entire context (such as a stone objectively being a concrete object in the eyes of a human, but not objectively so lacking that context), anything that would represent the antithesis of those principles can absolutely be termed abhorrent. Claiming otherwise, or start going on about assigning values (which certainly isn't needed in the least) is just pretentious silliness (or alternatively, stupidity).

Having said that, I hope you don't respond again. I haven't blocked anyone here, actually, and I hope I won't - but it is really close at this point. I mean I've seen a lot of stupidity, but the pretentious, pseudo-intellectual bullcrap that you seem to think is somehow deep or smart, rather takes the cake. I had to deal with enough of that when dealing with immature 101-students at university.

[Faenskap]

We can't refer to Gyspies as Gypsies, we have to call them "Rom people" now, that seems a little Orwellian.

Buuut apart from that, can't really think of anything.

[Deleted]

We can't refer to Gyspies as Gypsies, we have to call them "Rom people" now, that seems a little Orwellian.

Buuut apart from that, can't really think of anything.

You mean apart from the increasingly creepy and omnipresent government surveillance and corporativism?

[Mayhem]

I dont see a big connection with free speech. Apparently the premise of civil forfeiture is that because the suspect did not come upon the property legally, they dont own it, thus do not have the legal rights of its property owner.

Obviously taking control of property without ultra strong evidence would be bad and authoritarian.

It´s not connected to free speech but your claim that your laws are based on phsyical or financial damage.

[Endus]

There has to be a "credible threat of violence" to go further. Which means the violence must exist somewhere in the verbal evidence, such as in a recorded message. If you are physically stalking someone that is by definition a physical threat.

The list provided by Djalil directly contradicts this, and details that an affront to their dignity and their psychological integrity is sufficient to qualify as "damages".

It doesn't have to be physical or financial. Emotional damages are absolutely on the list, despite your attempts to ignore this.

It has to be more than just "you said a bad word and hurt my feelings", but repeatededly using racial slurs on someone absolutely crosses that line, for example.

[nextormento]

I agree that if based on those things you can specifically prove you have been financially damaged then you have a civil case. If at any point they directly implied violence, then you have a criminal case. Of course both require evidence.

It doesn't have to be physical or financial. Emotional damages are absolutely on the list, despite your attempts to ignore this.

They're not arguing they're not "damaging", or ignoring it. The argument raised is that workplace and labor health/safety legislation is motivated by finances.
It is an unorthodox outlook on health and safety. But treating the well being of workers as a financial asset is not unheard of.

[Deleted]

They're not arguing they're not "damaging", or ignoring it. The argument raised is that workplace and labor health/safety legislation is motivated by finances.
It is an unorthodox outlook on health and safety. But treating the well being of laborers as a financial asset is not unheard of.

Mental stability directly affects your productivity so yes it can easily be turned into a financial issue.

[Mayhem]

They're not arguing they're not "damaging", or ignoring it. The argument raised is that workplace and labor health/safety legislation is motivated by finances.
It is an unorthodox outlook on health and safety. But treating the well being of workers as a financial asset is not unheard of.

Well by that notion every law from every country is based on financial damage.

[Zoey141]

So the Bush Administration?

More like the Trump Administration? (I pray with all sincerity that he never gets anywhere close to the White House though).

[nextormento]

Well by that notion every law from every country is based on financial damage.

And they'd argue that laws should do that.
We follow HR conventions because other countries could exert financial pressure on us.
We care for climate change because it's expensive not to.

So, yes: it's easy to frame everything under physical and fiscal safety.
The question is "should we?". We don't yet have an answer, I'm afraid.

[Deleted]

Well by that notion every law from every country is based on financial damage.

You get that the vast majority of law was foundationally about property rights?

[Mayhem]

You get that the vast majority of law was foundationally about property rights?

You do understand what the word every means?

- - - Updated - - -

And they'd argue that laws should do that.
We follow HR conventions because other countries could exert financial pressure on us.
We care for climate change because it's expensive not to.

So, yes: it's easy to frame everything under physical and fiscal safety.
The question is "should we?". We don't yet have an answer, I'm afraid.

Doesn´t such a system of laws ultimately lead to increasing the gap between rich and poor? A person without a job can´t reasonably make a claim for financial damage in such a system.

[Faenskap]

You mean apart from the increasingly creepy and omnipresent government surveillance and corporativism?

I just don't consider myself important enough that the government would like to know what I'm doing. I am extremely unimportant.

For corporativism (that rolls easily on the tongue and the keyboard) I guess you do have a fair point, if I understand the word correctly.

I'm from Norway and there we rarely question "big buisness" when it's involved with the government, like partially owned by them. Panama Papers - Norway's biggest bank was involved and that case died out pretty quickly, and there wasn't much critisism towards them. We only have a few grocery stores owned by families and corporations, those families are also among Norway's richest. Lidl (German brand) tried to establish themselves in Norway. Yeh, that didn't work out too well. They were quite frankly bullied out of country. Scandinavian goverments own SAS (airline company). Rarely can you see them being critisised. The privately owned airline Norwegian on the other hand... Oh my.

We laugh of Americans' culture of sueing everything that moves, whereas in Norway, the big companies are never questioned. And that - that is worrying

[Deleted]

I always roll my eyes when people mention orwellian

[Bollocks]

I always roll my eyes when people mention orwellian

I really wish people would shut up about 1984. It often goes likes this:

Facebook deletes post for being offensive.
Person: OMG CENSORSHIP, FACEBOOK HAS BECOME AN ORWELLIAN NIGHTMARE, BLAH BLAH BLAH 1984.