• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wow, UK has lost freedom of speech

Hercules56 said:
Punish the criminals.

And let everyone know what the punishment will be IF you harass employees or patients moving to and from a clinic.
Click to expand...
So you're fine with the harassment, assaults, threats, arson, bombings and murders because the perpetrators might be caught and punished?
 
catsmate said:
Or, and this might be a revolutionary concept for you, prevent they from potentially killing someone in advance.
Click to expand...
How the ◊◊◊◊ do you prevent someone from throwing a rock at a abortion clinic window, if you don't know he is carrying a rock in his pocket until he takes it out to throw it?
 
Hercules56 said:
Just because I do not support certain laws regarding Prior Restraint, does not mean I support allowing harassment to happen. Your logic is terribly flawed.

Your country has many crimes with no prior restraint laws designed to prevent such crimes, does that mean your country supports robbery, burglary, rape, kidnapping, child abuse, assault???

Your logic is ridiculously flawed. Almost laughable.
Click to expand...
Yes, some crimes are more difficult to deter prior to commitment. Therefore a society should just throw up their hands and not attempt to stop any crime before it happens. Your logic is ridiculously flawed. Almost laughable.

Actually any country that has reasonable reason to believe a crime will occur, including but not limited to those crimes on your list, will take steps to ensure that the crime will not be committed (well possibly except the USA where police have a SCOTUS ruling that they are not required to protect the public). They will not stand aside and watch a murder take place before they arrest the murderer.
 
Hercules56 said:
Yours did.
Click to expand...
My what did what?

And you missed this part of the post you quoted so I repeat:

You simply refuse to, or quite possibly can't, understand what was infracted in this case, and substitute your own dubious reality instead.

And you definitely have no concept of a society that attempts to balance the rights of all its members based on present day realities and does not defer to the outdated ideas of a few old men 250 years ago.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
Strawman.
Click to expand...
I defer to your expertise.

It is then your opinion that societies should merely be selective in the crimes that they should try to prevent in advance? Your myriad comments appear to land on both sides of this issue. Try to prevent all crimes for which there is prior knowledge? Do not try to prevent any crimes for which there is prior knowledge? Or selective prevention based on.... what?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom