UK Politics Thread VII: Wake me DUP inside [can't wake UUP]

[Painisia]

How is the negotiations with the EU going?

[Salandriagado]

Sure: no forcing people to do things that they express significant moral objections to.

So no forcing people to offer spousal benefits to same-sex couples?

Add all of the usual provisos about "except where doing otherwise would violate the rights of others" to the end, fucking obviously.


But yes, that should be illegal for people other than the government to do. Vigilantism is bad, mkay?

[Souseiseki]

How is the negotiations with the EU going?

badly. the UK is too constrained by divisions in its internal politics to come up with a coherent position.

[Eastfield Lodge]

Don't worry about the "don't want to go" part

No, you don't get to say "don't worry about the actual point of the fucking issue" and expect people to play along.

- put it this way, the young children get no choice in the matter, the parents take them to Church/Sunday school and other religious practices and there is nothing they can do about it - that's force.

If the parents continue to do so against significant objections from the children, then yes, I'd prosecute.

On the other hand, would you prosecute if the children forced the parents to stay home from Church against the parents' wishes?

[Hydesland]

No, you don't get to say "don't worry about the actual point of the fucking issue" and expect people to play along.

The personal feelings of children are unequivocally irrelevant when they have no choice to begin with.

If the parents continue to do so against significant objections from the children, then yes, I'd prosecute.

Again, what if you don't know whether the children object or not, but you do know they don't get a choice either way? That means you can still say they're being forced. Under these rules you'd be prosecuting practically all Churchgoing families by the way, this would be a terrifying draconian crackdown.

[Salandriagado]

No, you don't get to say "don't worry about the actual point of the fucking issue" and expect people to play along.



If the parents continue to do so against significant objections from the children, then yes, I'd prosecute.

On the other hand, would you prosecute if the children forced the parents to stay home from Church against the parents' wishes?

I can't see any mechanism by which said children could do that.

[Salandriagado]

No, you don't get to say "don't worry about the actual point of the fucking issue" and expect people to play along.

The personal feelings of children are unequivocally irrelevant when they have no choice to begin with.

We are literally debating whether they should have a choice. Their opinions are literally the most important thing in the world to such a debate.

If the parents continue to do so against significant objections from the children, then yes, I'd prosecute.

Again, what if you don't know whether the children object or not, but you do know they don't get a choice either way?

If they haven't expressed an objection, then they aren't being forced.

That means you can still say they're being forced.

Not if you're speaking English you can't.

Under these rules you'd be prosecuting practically all Churchgoing families by the way, this would be a terrifying draconian crackdown.

No you wouldn't, because your ridiculous blatantly deliberate misinterpretation of what I said is not the same as what I actually said.

[Hydesland]

We are literally debating whether they should have a choice. Their opinions are literally the most important thing in the world to such a debate.

If they haven't expressed an objection, then they aren't being forced.

This is just completely wrong. If I'm a slave in shackles, and my slavemaster decides to take me to the beach, and I enjoy going to the beach, I'm still a slave, I still have no choice, I am still being forced, my preferences are irrelevant.

No you wouldn't, because your ridiculous blatantly deliberate misinterpretation of what I said is not the same as what I actually said.

Even if you could somehow meaningfully distinguish between objecting and non objecting children - almost all children don't like going to church. I found church to be a huge bore and would have much preferred to have stayed at home playing video games - I'd still have been horrified if you literally prosecuted my parents for it.

[Eastfield Lodge]

On the other hand, would you prosecute if the children forced the parents to stay home from Church against the parents' wishes?

I can't see any mechanism by which said children could do that.

Because the parents could be done for child endangerment if they left the kids at home by themselves?

[Salandriagado]

We are literally debating whether they should have a choice. Their opinions are literally the most important thing in the world to such a debate.

If they haven't expressed an objection, then they aren't being forced.

This is just completely wrong. If I'm a slave in shackles, and my slavemaster decides to take me to the beach, and I enjoy going to the beach, I'm still a slave, I still have no choice, I am still being forced, my preferences are irrelevant.

Only if you don't have the ability to object and then not be forced. You know, literally the thing we're discussing.

No you wouldn't, because your ridiculous blatantly deliberate misinterpretation of what I said is not the same as what I actually said.

Even if you could somehow meaningfully distinguish between objecting and non objecting children

You can: the objecting ones express objections.

- almost all children don't like going to church. I found church to be a huge bore and would have much preferred to have stayed at home playing video games - I'd still have been horrified if you literally prosecuted my parents for it.

Notice how "I think this is boring" and "I have major moral objections to this" are two different sentences. I'm beginning to think you haven't even read my posts.

[Salandriagado]

I can't see any mechanism by which said children could do that.

Because the parents could be done for child endangerment if they left the kids at home by themselves?

If the kids are that young, then they are below the age of criminal responsibility, so literally can't be prosecuted, so no. And at any rate, the parents can just get a friend to look after them, or hire a baby sitter, or whatever the fuck else they feel like doing to still be able to go to church. Or they could not. That's their choice.

[The Liberated Territories]

How is the negotiations with the EU going?

Sad. UK should become apart of the US so it can participate in the open market between our states.

[Souseiseki]

How is the negotiations with the EU going?

Sad. UK should become apart of the US so it can participate in the open market between our states.

but mein sovereignty

[Hydesland]

Only if you don't have the ability to object and then not be forced. You know, literally the thing we're discussing.

How on earth are you defining object? Because I feel like we're both using the word in completely different ways.

Notice how "I think this is boring" and "I have major moral objections to this" are two different sentences. I'm beginning to think you haven't even read my posts.

I don't remember you once qualifying 'objection' with 'moral' - and by the way by the time I was a young adolescent I probably would have had philosophical objections to Christianity, but I would have had a far greater philosophical objection to my parents being prosecuted for taking me to church.

[Salandriagado]

Only if you don't have the ability to object and then not be forced. You know, literally the thing we're discussing.

How on earth are you defining object? Because I feel like we're both using the word in completely different ways.

Read a dictionary. I'm using the definition out of there.

Notice how "I think this is boring" and "I have major moral objections to this" are two different sentences. I'm beginning to think you haven't even read my posts.

I don't remember you once qualifying 'objection' with 'moral'

So no, you aren't reading my posts:

Can you phrase your objection in a way that doesn't single out religion, but specifically outlines the behavior you object to and want to stop?

Like;
"No religious rants on homophobia." (Unacceptable, unsecular) -> "No rants on homophobia." (Secular.)

Just like "Religion" isn't an excuse for bad behavior (or shouldn't be) "It's not religious tho" shouldn't be an excuse either. The behavior is either wrong, or it isn't.

Sure: no forcing people to do things that they express significant moral objections to.

- and by the way by the time I was a young adolescent I probably would have had philosophical objections to Christianity, but I would have had a far greater philosophical objection to my parents being prosecuted for taking me to church.

So your objections weren't particularly significant, given that you made no actual objection and don't seem to care about being forced to participate in the thing you nominally objected to. That's nice for you, but the same is not true for everybody.

[Neu Leonstein]

How is the negotiations with the EU going?

I posted about the latest developments here and then here, and for my view on why things are going so poorly here.

[Hydesland]

Read a dictionary. I'm using the definition out of there.

"say something to express one's opposition to or disagreement with something."

As a slave I can (unless I'm literally gagged) say or express my opposition to anything, I still have the ability to object to something, even if I'm forced to do it. You being forced to do something is invariant to whether you can express your objection to it. The important thing about force is that they have no choice in the matter, not merely that they are doing something they 'object' to.

So no, you aren't reading my posts:

I'm reading you responses to me, not to Ostro.

So your objections weren't particularly significant, given that you made no actual objection and don't seem to care about being forced to participate in the thing you nominally objected to. That's nice for you, but the same is not true for everybody.

You've moved the goal posts significantly. The original claim was about having religion "forced on you" - being taken to Church and having to listen to sermons, where I have no choice not to go, is force by any reasonable definition.

[Philjia]

How is the negotiations with the EU going?

[Salandriagado]

Read a dictionary. I'm using the definition out of there.

"say something to express one's opposition to or disagreement with something."

As a slave I can (unless I'm literally gagged) say or express my opposition to anything, I still have the ability to object to something, even if I'm forced to do it. You being forced to do something is invariant to whether you can express your objection to it. The important thing about force is that they have no choice in the matter, not merely that they are doing something they 'object' to.

You are again not reading my fucking posts. Try reading the whole fucking sentence, reproduced here for your convenience, with the bit you skipped in bold:

Only if you don't have the ability to object and then not be forced.

So no, you aren't reading my posts:

I'm reading you responses to me, not to Ostro.

That's your problem.

So your objections weren't particularly significant, given that you made no actual objection and don't seem to care about being forced to participate in the thing you nominally objected to. That's nice for you, but the same is not true for everybody.

You've moved the goal posts significantly. The original claim was about having religion "forced on you" - being taken to Church and having to listen to sermons, where I have no choice not to go, is force by any reasonable definition.

No I haven't. If you don't object, it's not force, providing that if you do object, your objection will be respected. If such an objection is made and isn't respected, that's the point at which it becomes a problem. This is literally precisely the thing that I've been saying this entire time. Try reading it this time.

[Ostroeuropa]

Can you phrase your objection in a way that doesn't single out religion, but specifically outlines the behavior you object to and want to stop?

Like;
"No religious rants on homophobia." (Unacceptable, unsecular) -> "No rants on homophobia." (Secular.)

Just like "Religion" isn't an excuse for bad behavior (or shouldn't be) "It's not religious tho" shouldn't be an excuse either. The behavior is either wrong, or it isn't.

Sure: no forcing people to do things that they express significant moral objections to.

uhhhhhh...
Taxes.
Selling goods or services to (insert group here.)
Etc.

[Salandriagado]

Sure: no forcing people to do things that they express significant moral objections to.

uhhhhhh...
Taxes.
Selling goods or services to (insert group here.)
Etc.

It is a long-established principle that the government is allowed to do things that random citizens aren't.

[Ostroeuropa]

uhhhhhh...
Taxes.
Selling goods or services to (insert group here.)
Etc.

It is a long-established principle that the government is allowed to do things that random citizens aren't.

...
Selling goods or services to (Insert group here).
Paying for things they don't consider up to standard.
Paying for things in general.
Patronizing capitalist firms.

"Don't worry, I'm a communist."
*loots shit*

[Salandriagado]

It is a long-established principle that the government is allowed to do things that random citizens aren't.

...
Selling goods or services to (Insert group here).

Forced by the government, not by random citizens.

Paying for things they don't consider up to standard.

Your right to not do this is literally enshrined in law.

Paying for things in general.
Patronizing capitalist firms.

You aren't forced to do either of these at all: you just have to deal with the natural consequences if you don't.

[Hydesland]

Only if you don't have the ability to object and then not be forced.

I said that I'm being forced, since I'm a slave, you responded "Only if you don't have the ability to object and then not be forced" - that's a difficult sentence to parse for me, but it seems like a non sequitur now. Do you agree that I'm being forced to go the beach, despite the fact I don't have an objection to going, in this scenario?

No I haven't. If you don't object, it's not force, providing that if you do object, your objection will be respected. If such an objection is made and isn't respected, that's the point at which it becomes a problem. This is literally precisely the thing that I've been saying this entire time. Try reading it this time.

Sure, young children do not, in most cases, have the ability to have their 'objection' to going to church be respected. Do you agree? This shouldn't be controversial. You understand the custody dynamic between the parent and their child, yes? Young children don't have too much free will on where they can go.

[Ostroeuropa]

...
Selling goods or services to (Insert group here).

Forced by the government, not by random citizens.

Paying for things they don't consider up to standard.

Your right to not do this is literally enshrined in law.

Paying for things in general.
Patronizing capitalist firms.

You aren't forced to do either of these at all: you just have to deal with the natural consequences if you don't.

Children are not considered capable of informed consent.
Their objections to things carry less weight because of this.

Have you ever heard a toddler screaming about something not being fair?
I suppose we just have to stay at the park literally all day and night because billies moral compass is perturbed at the prospect of going home, or do we just abandon the child?

That doesn't mean it's a wild west of parents being able to do whatever. It means we form a social consensus on the limits of their control.
Same for anyone considered similarly incapacitated.

"It's immoral for you to force me to stay in this asylum while the goblins are plotting to overthrow society."