TV / television licensing MEGATHREAD

[Obelix]

That's irrelevant.

 

No, it really isn't.

 

You basically want your cake and the eat it, whilst denying everyone else cake.

 

You don't get special treatment just because you think your point of view is more valid than other peoples. Everyone buys into the social contract that is offered by the laws of the land, and enjoys the fruits of that contract. You don't get to decide you are better than someone else - if everyone did that the end result would be that the social contract would fail and we would end up in anarchy.

[Magilla]

I do enjoy things like Wolf Hall, and I reckon BBC2 did some really groundbreaking programming when it first came on but I think they are falling behind now.

 

Behind what? Certainly not any free to air channel.

[onewheeldave]

It's not irrelevant, because you want to be protected from certain actions and don't think that other people should be able to steal from your or assault you...

Hi Cyclone- any chance of you answering that question? 4th time of asking-

 

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

 

I do realise that if you say they shouldn't, it kind of scuppers a big part of your own argument, and, if you say they should, you may appear non-pc and a bit homophobic, but, hey ho, that's the nature of discussion if you're trying to get to actual truth, it means answering difficult questions.

 

---------- Post added 02-04-2015 at 13:53 ----------

 

If other people see things differently who's right? That's why we have laws that have been made on behalf of us all..even though people's morals vary the laws don't (not without some sort of public consent anyway)..there are some we agree with and some we don't but to get along we need to obey them all..you can't just cherry pick..

 

Situation is, whatever way we choose, people will see things differently, and some people will have the views of others imposed on them (by force or by law).

 

You, for example, think all should follow the set of rules called law, regardless of whether they agree with them, or even consider them morally wrong.

 

Cool- it's a plan; it's coherent. But, of necessity, it involves imposing your social plan on people like me, who dissagree with it.

 

So, of necessity, somewhere along the line, someone has to decide which way is right, at which point you get your own critisism right back at you- who are you to choose that it's right that everyone must follow all laws (even the ones they consider immoral)?

[Obelix]

Hi Cyclone- any chance of you answering that question? 4th time of asking-

 

Ever heard of the fallacy called Tu Quoque?

 

Cyclones refusal to answer (and mine actually) is not because we are unwilling but because it's not germane to the argument being made. Your constant attempts to derail this and try and claim some perceived moral highground are, as he says, irrelevant.

[onewheeldave]

Ever heard of the fallacy called Tu Quoque?

 

Cyclones refusal to answer (and mine actually) is not because we are unwilling but because it's not germane to the argument being made. Your constant attempts to derail this and try and claim some perceived moral highground are, as he says, irrelevant.

 

No, why don't you explain what 'Tu Quoque' is, and, how it relates to Cyclone not answering the question.

 

As for the question being not 'germane' (relevant)- do you want to have a stab at how me asking cyclone whether he'd advise homosexuals to follow (or not) anti-homosexuality laws, which he (cyclone) agrees are immoral laws, is not relevant to a argument discussing whether people should follow laws they consider to be immoral?

[spilldig]

Behind what? Certainly not any free to air channel.

 

Sky/Virgin.

[Magilla]

Sky/Virgin.

 

So what you're saying is that decent TV equates to US imports for several times the cost of the BBC.

 

Virgin don't make any shows, Sky have had a go, they tend to be low brow populist nonsense you would expect.

 

BBC4 alone outweighs Sky's offerings in regard to education/scientific programming.

 

You aren't really making much sense, since eveything you've mentioned costs far far far more than than the BBC does presently, and is of lower quality/value (especially to a UK audience).

 

I asked before but you avoided responding. Should the poor be relegated to X-Factor/Big Brother shows unless they want to pay significantly more? If so, why not the same for schools, the NHS, or anything else that is currently provided as a public service? The notion that the BBC is unimportant simply doesnt' stand up to scrutiny (IMV).

Edited April 2, 2015 by Magilla

[truman]

Situation is, whatever way we choose, people will see things differently, and some people will have the views of others imposed on them (by force or by law).

 

You, for example, think all should follow the set of rules called law, regardless of whether they agree with them, or even consider them morally wrong.

 

Cool- it's a plan; it's coherent. But, of necessity, it involves imposing your social plan on people like me, who dissagree with it.

 

So, of necessity, somewhere along the line, someone has to decide which way is right, at which point you get your own critisism right back at you- who are you to choose that it's right that everyone must follow all laws (even the ones they consider immoral)?

 

Because that's how we survive as a society...if everyone just chose to obey the laws they thought were moral and just then, as people's morals are different, it would be chaos..

[Obelix]

No, why don't you explain what 'Tu Quoque' is, and, how it relates to Cyclone not answering the question.

 

As for the question being not 'germane' (relevant)- do you want to have a stab at how me asking cyclone whether he'd advise homosexuals to follow (or not) anti-homosexuality laws, which he (cyclone) agrees are immoral laws, is not relevant to a argument discussing whether people should follow laws they consider to be immoral?

 

You've got access to google like everyone else.

 

Why don't you answer the point me and Cyclone have been making for the last several pages now - or is it too tricky for you to understand?

 

---------- Post added 02-04-2015 at 15:57 ----------

 

Because that's how we survive as a society...if everyone just chose to obey the laws they thought were moral and just then, as people's morals are different, it would be chaos..

 

He won't answer it - he's choosing to be selectivly outraged at people not answering his questions on being gay.

[spilldig]

So what you're saying is that decent TV equates to US imports for several times the cost of the BBC.

 

Virgin don't make any shows, Sky have had a go, they tend to be low brow populist nonsense you would expect.

 

BBC4 alone outweighs Sky's offerings in regard to education/scientific programming.

 

You aren't really making much sense, since eveything you've mentioned costs far far far more than than the BBC does presently, and is of lower quality/value (especially to a UK audience).

 

If it is so good it would be able to go subscription.