This was the learning pint for me today. Proper understanding on why and when this happened. People not agreeing because of a story that has been passed on for hundreds and hundreds of years. Nuts.
Kind of like whether Rome should rule the Christian world in the Middle Ages and the issues that caused ............
Or Red Dwarf ......... "Cat culture is strongly dependent on their religion, believing that a god known as Cloister the Stupid will lead them to the promised land, Fuchal (pronounced "Fyooshal"), where they would open a Temple of Food. In the original novels, the promised land is named "Bearth" for Earth, rather than "Fuchal" for Fiji. Cloister is said to be the father of the Cat people. He is reported to have lived years ago, at the Beginning, and was willingly "frozen in time" so the cat race could exist. This religious dogma parallels the true story, and Cloister is in fact the anti-hero Dave Lister. A religious conflict erupted due to differing interpretations of dogma; in the original novels, this was over the name of God (Cloister/Clister), whereas the television series had the war concerning the colour (red or blue) of the hats that the people who served at the Temple of Food were to wear (according to Lister, the hats were actually supposed to be green). In both continuities, the war raged for thousands of years and most of the Felis sapiens population was killed in the fighting. A truce was called, and each faction built a spacecraft known as a Cat Ark and left Red Dwarf in search of Fuchal. In the television series, the faction who believed the hats should be blue followed a sacred writing of Cloister (actually Lister's laundry list), which they had interpreted as a star chart, and immediately flew into an asteroid. It is not known what became of the second spacecraft. In either case, only the healthy cats left Red Dwarf; the maimed, deformed and insane were left behind, eventually dying out until only The Cat was left."
They're similar. All three of those statements boil down to "Losing that right doesn't affect/bother me so go ahead and take it away." We have a right to privacy. Privacy is about being able to choose what you reveal to the world and what you keep to yourself. Once the NSA, GCHQ... whoever, can listen to your phones calls, check your emails, pictures, videos, medical history, internet history, read your personal diary etc you don't have that choice any more. That's without even considering the fact we know the security people can't be trusted with these powers (the NSA have admitted some of their staff have listened to phone calls made by their partners), what happens if the security services decide they should plant incriminating evidence in your emails because you're a security risk or the more likely dilemma of what happens when all that lovely data they've collected gets hacked.
I don't agree with how you've worded your first paragraph Puck. That is your translation 'boiling' those statements down. They can easily be saying, "I understand the effect this will have on me, but I'm prepared to allow that." If someone thinks it is ok to happen, that's still their choice and it may not be about their not being bothered but about them being prepared to think about a bigger picture not just themselves. It doesn't mean they are right or wrong to think that.
I don't know why you have such a dislike of Mr. Corbyn Fran, obviously he doesn't dislike his own country, he wants to lead it in a better direction, he dislikes what many of it's leaders have done, not the country!
"I understand the effect this will have on me, but I'm prepared to allow that." is just a different way of saying "Losing that right doesn't bother me so go ahead and take it away." But saying "I'm okay with this. I have nothing to hide" is unlikely to be someone thinking about a bigger picture than themselves. In fact it's very likely to be the opposite; it's someone fairly explicitly saying "I won't be adversely affected by this so I don't have a problem with it".
The times they are a changing - I'm 55 and occasionally bought a newspaper. My daughter is 28 and has never bought a newspaper. All her info is from the internet. Although places like facebook are bombarded by either "right wing" or "left wing" posts at least you can block those that you don't agree with. There is a whole new generation that previously had no interest in politics because there were no alternatives that are now thinking. Everything evolves and it will.
Sorry Puck. I just think that your words are just a way of diminishing an opposing view. It could be someone prepared to make a sacrifice if they thought it was the right thing to do. It could be because they are bothered.That view can be someone thinking about the bigger picture (not is, but can be) but you have categorised it in your mind and turned it into 'not bothered'. Acceptance of something does not mean not being bothered about something. I think a lot longer conversation needs having with someone before making those assumptions. I'm going to leave it now as it's hard to express views that won't get misinterpreted or seen as too black and white.
If we're discussing someone who has thought the question through properly I suggest that your example needs a more nuanced rewording: "Losing that right doesn't bother me more than what I believe to be the consequences of not losing that right so go ahead and take it away." You can't assume that the loss means nothing; the speaker may hate losing their right but they have balanced that against the other option. Irrespective of what I said in the first section, I would say that this is probably the stance taken by many; a glib soundbite solution rather than a considered one. Vin
Another piece which highlights how some, including my paper of choice for the last 30 years, the Guardian have failed to grasp the true nature of ISIS. http://www.faisalalmutar.com/2015/11/16/i-am-a-jihadist-and-i-am-tired-of-not-being-given-credit/
-http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/34836400/anonymous-declares-war-on-islamic-state Can't decide how effective this will be. On the one hand it will inconvenience IS but if it was that useful you can bet the security forces would have done it ages ago.
Security probably like to monitor twitter etc for info. Closing it down is probably something they save for when they are about to pounce. Anyone who wears a mask like 'Anonymous' obviously has a very high opinion of their importance in the world.
I'm not sure I see this as an entirely welcome development. Selecting news sources based upon their political views being similar to yours mean that your preconceptions are rarely if ever challenged. In the long term it leads to a situation whereby a large number of people in the USA get their news from Fox and believe that Obama is a muslim satan. Similarly, I know people who never read anything but the Guardian and believe that profit is evil. Vin
My father always claimed you should read a newspaper that really annoys you but be buggered if I'll read the Daily Mail.
