TV / television licensing MEGATHREAD

[Magilla]

You are commenting on too many things so I was replying to each in turn but you seem obsessed with the NHS for some reason.

 

I go on about the NHS because the reason it exists and the principles under which it operates are largely the same as the BBC, unsurprisingly, they're both public service organisations.

 

Without doubt, the UK would be worse off without either of them or if they were forced to drop their public service commitments by pandering to whoever can pay the most! The very thing you claim to be afraid of.

[spilldig]

I go on about the NHS because the reason it exists and the principles under which it operates are largely the same as the BBC, unsurprisingly, they're both public service organisations.

 

Without doubt, the UK would be worse off without either of them or if they were forced to drop their public service commitments by pandering to whoever can pay the most! The very thing you claim to be afraid of.

 

As I say, one is needed the other is not.

[onewheeldave]

You were wrong than and are wrong now. IF you want to choose which laws to break and do so with moral superiority you need to set up your own society first, rather than try it in someone elses.

 

It is my society- just as much as it is yours. If you want to talk morality, then you need to get your hands dirty with some moral discussion, rather than hiding behind a set of arbitrary laws which clearly are based on things other than actual morality.

 

---------- Post added 28-03-2015 at 17:34 ----------

 

I go on about the NHS because the reason it exists and the principles under which it operates are largely the same as the BBC...

 

???????wow!

 

---------- Post added 28-03-2015 at 17:35 ----------

 

You accused me of strawmanning when I pointed out that you agree with other laws and expect to have them enforced. It wasn't a strawman though was it, it was an entirely legitimate point which highlights how you (as you quite clearly say) decide for yourself which laws you think can be broken.

I'm hazy on why you feel the need to 'prove' that I believe things which I've already clearly stated I believe on several occasions?

 

Yes, I'm OK with some laws being enforced- generally those that serve a genuine moral purpose, such as protecting people from burglary and murder.

 

Whilst not being OK with some other laws- generally those based on maintaining unjust social hierachical structures/financial interests or which cause actual harm.

 

That would include our bizarre and illogical drug laws.

 

You being such a fan of science and proper evidence might want to look into those drug laws, as the evidence clearly indicates they are seriously flawed and cause actual harm. Be interesting to know how you reconcile your support of said laws (at least to the extent you advocate others to obey them) with the fact that they contradict the evidence.

 

---------- Post added 28-03-2015 at 17:44 ----------

 

 

You really think that people should be able to decide that murder is okay?

No.

 

 

I don't think you do.

You're right, I don't

 

What you really mean is that people should do the same as you, but only so long as they reach the same conclusions and agree with your opinion.

 

Nope, wrong again. I'd suggest a good way to know what I think is just to listen to what I actually say.

 

As you know, I am autistic, and hence, communicate with words. You seem to think I communicate with subtle insinuations. I don't. I can't. I'm autistic. Of the 'high functioning' (aspergers) variety.

 

What I do think, is that how we act should be based on morality, and, that if our societies laws go against morality (as they often do), then disobeying them is not a bad thing.

 

That's what I think. Any interpretations of your own that you draw from what I say (like those above) are yours, not mine.

Edited March 28, 2015 by onewheeldave

[Obelix]

It is my society- just as much as it is yours..

 

Not if you want to break the law. At that point you are not participating in the society defined by those laws, however inconvenient you may find that.

 

---------- Post added 30-03-2015 at 12:12 ----------

 

As you know, I am autistic, and hence, communicate with words

 

You know I thought you'd pull that card out...

 

Give it a rest. You are not the only aspie on here you know - just that most of the others tend not to use it as an excuse for poor form.

[Cyclone]

You really think that people should be able to decide that murder is okay? I don't think you do. What you really mean is that people should do the same as you, but only so long as they reach the same conclusions and agree with your opinion.

 

You're being very inconsistent for someone who only communicates with words.

 

You think that people should choose what laws to obey, but you don't think that people should be able to choose whether to obey the law regarding murder.

So by implication you think that they should only choose to disobey the ones that you've decided it's okay to disobey... Which is what I said, and you denied.

 

Since our collective morality is defined by the laws we as a society pass, you can't use "my morality" is different, without also allowing other people to have different morality, which might happen to include murder being okay and possession of goods being more important than ownership of goods.

[Magilla]

As I say, one is needed the other is not.

 

Both are needed, I've already explained why!

 

Your view seems to be that anyone who can afford to make their own arrangements or who doesn't think a service is needed should be allowed to simply not contribute!

 

No public service would survive under those cirumstances, the BBC, the NHS or any other you care to name.

[spilldig]

Both are needed, I've already explained why!

 

Your view seems to be that anyone who can afford to make their own arrangements or who doesn't think a service is needed should be allowed to simply not contribute!

 

No public service would survive under those cirumstances, the BBC, the NHS or any other you care to name.

 

I just disagree. The BBC is not needed.

[Magilla]

I just disagree. The BBC is not needed.

 

Why do you think that?

 

Is it right that if you're poor, you have to spend 3 fold the cost to recieve a (half) decent service?

[onewheeldave]

 

You know I thought you'd pull that card out...

 

Give it a rest. You are not the only aspie on here you know - just that most of the others tend not to use it as an excuse for poor form.

 

Stuff you dude- it ain't a 'card' it's a fact.

 

And a main characterisitic of autism is communication difficulties when interacting with neurotypicals (as our systems of social interaction/communication are evolved/designed by NTs, for NTs).

 

I'm pro-actively facing up to that by attempting to head off such communication issues- part of that is facilitated, IMO, by identifying myself as what I am- i.e. autistic.

 

That way, those few NTs who can accept that when a clearly intelligent individual says something that seems to make no sense at first glance it may be worth looking at it from a slightly different perspective; can have a chance to do so and, hopefully, understand what I'm actually saying.

 

---------- Post added 30-03-2015 at 17:58 ----------

 

You're being very inconsistent for someone who only communicates with words.

 

You think that people should choose what laws to obey, but you don't think that people should be able to choose whether to obey the law regarding murder.

So by implication you think that they should only choose to disobey the ones that you've decided it's okay to disobey... Which is what I said, and you denied.

 

Since our collective morality is defined by the laws we as a society pass, you can't use "my morality" is different, without also allowing other people to have different morality, which might happen to include murder being okay and possession of goods being more important than ownership of goods.

 

I'm not saying people should 'choose' what laws to obey in some kind of 'dice man' fashion.

 

What I am saying is that if a law is 'wrong'/immoral in the eyes of a person, it's worth them considering things like not adhering to it, or disobeying it.

 

Just to clear this up, could you answer this straightforward question?

 

i.e. if a person can see that a given law is immoral, in that it is a law that is clearly designed to maintain a corrupt principle, and, causes great harm- do you think that people should follow it?

 

Let's not talk about murder, let's talk about the UK anti-homosexuality laws that were overturned several decades back.

 

In your opinion, should a person back then, have followed the anti-homosexuality laws when they knew full well those laws were corrupt and immoral?

[spilldig]

Why do you think that?

 

Is it right that if you're poor, you have to spend 3 fold the cost to recieve a (half) decent service?

 

I don't think it does anything that could not be covered elsewhere.