TV / television licensing MEGATHREAD

[Obelix]

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

 

 

Temper temper...

 

 

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.

 

Clue in case you hadn't guessed - I'm not NT either.

 

Your insistence however that you are in some way special and should therefore have allowances made simply doesn't cut it - in the same way that you claimed that you should be free to ignore lighting rules and require me to fit lights to a trailer, and the same way that we should ignore laws we don't feel are right because we consider them immoral.

 

If we did that - if we allowed people to ignore laws they thought were immoral where would we be?

 

Well you'd be squashed under a car as the driver thinks it's immoral to have speed limits.

 

I'd be shot for environmental crimes as the greens think that a 4x4 is environmental rape

 

Let's not even get started on what the kiddie fiddlers would do

 

IF you are going to live in a society - you obey it's laws. Simple as that really. If you don't like those laws get them changed. Or go live elsewhere. But dont expect to break them and then say it's ok because you personally think they are immoral.

[Cyclone]

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 ----------

 

 

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?

 

I agree that some laws can be immoral, and the laws against homosexuality are a good historical example.

I don't agree that the law requiring you to buy a TV license is immoral though and as such I think that anyone who watches broadcast TV without paying for the license is themselves immoral and in the wrong.

 

That said, if you disobey a law and get caught, no matter your opinion on the morality, you can expect to be punished as society has specified.

 

---------- Post added 31-03-2015 at 11:13 ----------

 

 

You get to decide what's stupid/harmful/unfair then.

 

So do people who rob and commit violence I suppose. And they've decided that it's stupid that they can't rob you, so they do. That law, you want the police to enforce, this one, where you steal from the BBC and by extension everyone who IS paying the license fee, that one you've decided it's okay to break.

 

So coming back to this, the answer is yes, you want the police to enforce certain laws, but you don't want them to enforce other laws that you've decided are okay to break.

 

---------- Post added 31-03-2015 at 11:14 ----------

 

And you don't agree that people should be able to decide that murder is okay, so what I went on to say, that you only extend this freedom to choose to those who choose the same as you, is also correct.

[onewheeldave]

 

Your insistence however that you are in some way special and should therefore have allowances made simply doesn't cut it

Ironically the law disagrees with you

 

Specifically via the 2009 autism act which clearly states that organisations must make 'reasonable provisions' to cater for the difficulties that autistic people routinely face that NTs do not. Laws designed to compensate, to some small degree, the gross inequalities the autistic (tend to) face when it comes to accessing the oportunities that NTs take for granted (eg employment).

 

Although I will point out that, in the context of this thread, i've made zero claims of 'being special' or asked for allowances. What i've done is state 'hey- I'm autistic, (most of) you are not; it's a scientific fact that there are serious communication issues between the autistic and NTs, I've got considerably more experience of overcoming the communication blocks between auters and NTs than 99% of NTs do, so here's some suggestions to head off some of those blocks.

 

 

 

 

If we did that - if we allowed people to ignore laws they thought were immoral where would we be?

Hopefully a more moral society? One where, several decades back, if a govt tried to legislate against 2 men making love and sending police in to brutalise and imprison them, a large portion of the population would have stood up, said, 'no way, that's immoral' and done what was necessary to put an end to it.

 

As they would have done in Germany when the first anti-jew laws were brought in. Imagine what that could have headed-off/prevented.

 

Are you seriously promoting the following of immoral laws?

 

 

 

 

 

If we did that - if we allowed people to ignore laws they thought were immoral where would we be?

 

Well you'd be squashed under a car as the driver thinks it's immoral to have speed limits.

Speed laws aren't immoral dude

 

IF you are going to live in a society - you obey it's laws. Simple as that really. If you don't like those laws get them changed. Or go live elsewhere. But dont expect to break them and then say it's ok because you personally think they are immoral.

No. I'll live in my society and disobey any immoral laws I wish to. As do many others, for example, anyone, including no doubt, several following this thread, who routinely, enjoy smoking a bit of cannabis now and again (not me, but I fully approve of anyone who does so).

[Magilla]

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

 

That's true of every public service, the question is whether it would be as good, or as cheap.

 

Exactly where are all these alternative programs of the type that the BBC excells at making? Oh, they don't exist! I guess that puts paid to that notion.

 

Even if your assertion were correct, which it isn't (self evidently), they would cost the end user considerably more than the BBC costs now!

 

For the poor, a case of "let them eat cake" then. How depressing

Edited March 31, 2015 by Magilla

[onewheeldave]

That said, if you disobey a law and get caught, no matter your opinion on the morality, you can expect to be punished as society has specified.

Oh, I do. Doesn't make it right, but we live in a society where unjust laws are commonplace.

 

Thing about the TV license is, that with a modicum of common sense, you're not going to get caught. Not that it's relevant to me, as I don't use TV these days.

So coming back to this, the answer is yes, you want the police to enforce certain laws, but you don't want them to enforce other laws that you've decided are okay to break.

Yes, I'm happy for the police to enforce just, moral laws (eg murder and theft) and, I'd be really happy if they ceased to enforce the unjust and immoral laws (e.g. cannabis and most current drug laws)

And you don't agree that people should be able to decide that murder is okay, so what I went on to say, that you only extend this freedom to choose to those who choose the same as you, is also correct.

 

At this point we'd really need to define 'murder' wouldn't we. Certainly if it's defined as 'immoral killing' then it's not OK (though the govt routinely sanctions immoral killings). If murder is defined as 'illegal killing', then that alters things, doesn't it?

 

I think it's much simpler and more productive to deal with the example I brought up, of the past UK anti-homosexual laws, as, at least with those, with the exception of only the most deranged, they were clearly immoral.

 

As you yourself agreed. However, you neglected to answer the actual question, which was-

 

"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?"

[Obelix]

Speed laws aren't immoral dude

 

You are missing the point. You may not think so - and I think so too.

 

But lets take the homosexuality laws. People passed those, with the consent of most of the population because they thought same gender sex was immoral.

 

If you are going to have people break these laws because they think they are immoral, then you have to accept the consequence of people breaking laws you think are moral - like the speeding laws

 

Quid pro quo etc. That's the problem you end up in. You can always find someone that objects to a law because if no one objected - well we wouldnt actually need that law would would.

 

In other words - no one is special. Everyone gets to follow all of the laws or be a criminal. If you want to change the laws the right answer is to get Parliament to do so, not to just go and break them.

 

No. I'll live in my society and disobey any immoral laws I wish to.

 

OK. You won't object to me throwing tacks on the pavement then in front of cyclists because I think it's wrong they should be cycling there. After all I think it's immoral that I cannot defend myself against aggressive cyclists (you will see why in the next thread I'm about to start.)

 

Oh and it's not your society. It's our society - it belongs to all of us.

 

---------- Post added 31-03-2015 at 13:51 ----------

 

Yes, I'm happy for the police to enforce just, moral laws (eg murder and theft) and, I'd be really happy if they ceased to enforce the unjust and immoral laws (e.g. cannabis and most current drug laws)

 

Who gets to define what is a moral and immoral law then?

 

I know a lot of people that would find it perfectly moral to murder a child molestor....

[onewheeldave]

But lets take the homosexuality laws. People passed those, with the consent of most of the population because they thought same gender sex was immoral.

 

If you are going to have people break these laws because they think they are immoral, then you have to accept the consequence of people breaking laws you think are moral - like the speeding laws

 

Quid pro quo etc. That's the problem you end up in. You can always find someone that objects to a law because if no one objected - well we wouldnt actually need that law would would.

 

In other words - no one is special. Everyone gets to follow all of the laws or be a criminal. If you want to change the laws the right answer is to get Parliament to do so, not to just go and break them.

 

If people break the speeding laws, or the murder laws- if caught they'll be arrested and punished, regardless of whether they consider those laws immoral or not, and, regardless of whether those laws are immoral, or not.

 

Just as those poor victims of the immoral UK anti-homosexuality laws were arrested and punished.

 

That doesn't alter the fundamental fact that they were perfectly right to break those immoral UK anti-homosexuality laws.

 

You could be interpreted as saying here, that those men should have complied with the law, curtailed their romances, refrained from having sex, and, instead, campaigned for a law change!

 

Just to clarify, is that what you're saying? Straight answer to a straight question please (no pun intended).

 

---------- Post added 31-03-2015 at 17:48 ----------

 

 

 

OK. You won't object to me throwing tacks on the pavement then in front of cyclists because I think it's wrong they should be cycling there. After all I think it's immoral that I cannot defend myself against aggressive cyclists (you will see why in the next thread I'm about to start.)

 

Yes, I will, cos it's an immoral act. I'll also endeavour to have you arrested, cos I'll happily use the law if it acts against immoral behaviour.

 

---------- Post added 31-03-2015 at 17:59 ----------

 

Who gets to define what is a moral and immoral law then?

 

I'm happy to judge (not define) a ridiculous and harmful law like the anti-cannabis laws as immoral (plus, of course, the now defunct UK anti-homosexuality laws).

 

I appreciate there's an obvious problem here, in that, as you say, others could argue that, in their eyes, burglary is OK.

 

I just think the problems arising from your way, far outweigh those from the way I'm proposing i.e. the absurd situation where people are punished (or killed) for disobeying laws that are clearly immoral (e.g. cannabis and anti homosexuality laws). I think our society has been wrecked, and progress slowed to a grinding crawl, by an obsessive need to maintain systems and orders that are blatantly unjust and immoral.

 

Especially when those systems routinely break the rules and laws themselves and yet are beyond accountability.

 

Why is it that we accept, for example, that a person paying their council tax one day late can be financially sanctioned, yet thousands have to wait months for payments owed to them by the same council?

 

Why is it accepted that a person on benefits who makes the slightest error, can be punished to the point of having their lives ruined, yet that same benefit system is absolutely unnacountable for the mistakes it makes.

Edited March 31, 2015 by onewheeldave

[spilldig]

That's true of every public service, the question is whether it would be as good, or as cheap.

 

Exactly where are all these alternative programs of the type that the BBC excells at making? Oh, they don't exist! I guess that puts paid to that notion.

 

Even if your assertion were correct, which it isn't (self evidently), they would cost the end user considerably more than the BBC costs now!

 

For the poor, a case of "let them eat cake" then. How depressing

 

The only use I can see for it is the overseas world service and the shipping forecasts which the government could fund from general taxation.

As I see it the programs are no better than can be found on independent television and lets be clear on one thing. I never said I would stop paying for a license if it did go independent. I would just like the choice as I am sure the poor people you mention would, because they still have to buy a license even though they may never watch it.

[Cyclone]

Oh, I do. Doesn't make it right, but we live in a society where unjust laws are commonplace.

 

Thing about the TV license is, that with a modicum of common sense, you're not going to get caught. Not that it's relevant to me, as I don't use TV these days.

 

Yes, I'm happy for the police to enforce just, moral laws (eg murder and theft) and, I'd be really happy if they ceased to enforce the unjust and immoral laws (e.g. cannabis and most current drug laws)

You say that like there is some sort of universal morality to refer to. There isn't.

 

At this point we'd really need to define 'murder' wouldn't we. Certainly if it's defined as 'immoral killing' then it's not OK (though the govt routinely sanctions immoral killings). If murder is defined as 'illegal killing', then that alters things, doesn't it?

I think it's defined as unlawful killing with intent, or words to that effect.

 

I think it's much simpler and more productive to deal with the example I brought up, of the past UK anti-homosexual laws, as, at least with those, with the exception of only the most deranged, they were clearly immoral.

You say that as if there is some sort of universal morality to refer to.

As you yourself agreed. However, you neglected to answer the actual question, which was-

 

"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?"

 

There was nothing corrupt about the law btw, wrong, but corrupt means something very different.

[Obelix]

You could be interpreted as saying here, that those men should have complied with the law, curtailed their romances, refrained from having sex, and, instead, campaigned for a law change!

 

Just to clarify, is that what you're saying?

 

Let me rewrite that for you....

 

"You could be interpreted as saying here, that those men having sex with underaged girls should have complied with the law, curtailed their romances, refrained from having sex, and, instead, campaigned for a law change!"

 

"You could be interpreted as saying here, that those men engaged in bestiality should have complied with the law, curtailed their romances, refrained from having sex, and, instead, campaigned for a law change!"

 

What's the difference? Apart from the fact that you consider that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable (as do I).

 

At the time of these laws - most of the country thought that they were reasonably laws that were morally justified. Just as most people now think the laws on underage sex and bestiality are morally justfied...

 

Yes, I will, cos it's an immoral act. I'll also endeavour to have you arrested, cos I'll happily use the law if it acts against immoral behaviour.

 

Who says it's immoral? Just because you say it's immoral so what?

 

I'm happy to judge (not define) a ridiculous and harmful law like the anti-cannabis laws as immoral (plus, of course, the now defunct UK anti-homosexuality laws).

 

I'm quite happy to carry on with the perfectly moral laws about prohibiting a drug thanks. Who are you to say that cannabis is moral when most of the country have a differing opinion?

 

I appreciate there's an obvious problem here, in that, as you say, others could argue that, in their eyes, burglary is OK.

 

I think you are getting the point.

 

I just think the problems arising from your way, far outweigh those from the way I'm proposing i.e. the absurd situation where people are punished (or killed) for disobeying laws that are clearly immoral (e.g. cannabis and anti homosexuality laws). I think our society has been wrecked, and progress slowed to a grinding crawl, by an obsessive need to maintain systems and orders that are blatantly unjust and immoral.

 

In your opinion....