If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
do any political parties believe in personal freedoms these days
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
just seems they all hopping on the 'lets seem as harsh as possible without using harsh language'
0
Comments
and don't say the tories whom i beleive have a 'shadow secretery for homeland security'
soon they'll have one for 'practical rendition'
Parties that actually beleive in freedoms? Hell no, that would be equivilent to letting terrorists go free if they are to be beleived. Which of course, they are not.
So, no. Not at all.
This government is the most authoritarian government in recent history. The defeated ‘religious hatred’ law – a curb on free speech was opposed by the Conservatives. The fox hunting ban and smoking ban supported by Labour were opposed by most Conservative MPs. The Conservatives also opposed Labour’s 90 day detention plans. The Conservatives are generally hostile to the notion of an overbearing state and Cameron has stood firm against ID cards.
It’s Labour busybodies that want to prosecute parents that smack their kids, fine drinkers for daring to light up with their pint, lock up people without charge for months, erode free speech, undermine Parliament and ban ‘junk food’ advertising. Each time Labour goes for the easy solution, they opt to ‘ban’ something to create the perception that they’re doing something.
Child obesity? They talk about banning junk food advertising. They forget the fact that previous generations ate diets with a far higher calorie and fat content (but did more exercise) and seem to think that banning a few McDonald’s adverts will magically end child obesity. And it goes on and on. The Conservatives aren't perfect but if you value your freedoms they're certainly preferable to Labour.
Give them time. Put them into power and I guarentee they'll want all of the same things themselves. Their only job is to get elected. Once they've done that, like every other government, they'll do whatever the hell they want. There'll be a sudden change of circumstances that will mean that ID cards are 'essential' for the security of the country.
it wants to give votes to criminals, declassify if not legalise cannabis (although both have been kept quiet because they aren't seen as popular)
but its all there if you dig deep enough.
if you want more freedom move out of the city away from CCTV (the uk is third watched nation in the world behind china and usa) in to a nice field and grow ur own veg!
Do you believe in personal freeedoms?
Banning smacking would make pointless legislation. It’s almost unenforceable. Talking about banning smacking is an easy way to create the perception that something is being done about child abuse, to the contrary it wouldn’t remotely prevent child abuse – and it’s simplistic and offensive to suggest a light tap is equivalent to child abuse. Yet good parents guilty of nothing more than disciplining their child would be made to feel like child abusers. Supporters of it I assume are too thick to distinguish between beating and smacking. A tap on the hand to let a toddler know not to stick its fingers into the fire or run out into the road or whatever is not child abuse.
And if a parent does that it’s nothing to do with me, you or authoritarian Labour busybody MPs. Anyway as it is there are various cases of Social Services being unable to protect children from actual cases of abuse, since that’s the case how do you suppose a ban on smacking would be enforced? (Invariably I fear a ban on smacking would mean resources are targeted towards trivial cases such as a parent tapping a toddler on the hand for running out into the road – at the expense of investigating serious cases of real abuse).
What are you on about now? To say conservatism is ‘pro-life, yet pro death penalty’ and ‘pro censorship’ is as stupid as saying that Islam is pro-killing homosexuals and pro-blowing innocent people up. It’s a simplistic generalisation that displays a complete lack of understanding. Very few Conservative MPs support censorship, want to ban abortion and bring back the death penalty. You wouldn’t even get into double digits.
Conservatives that are ‘pro-life’ – or anti-choice, I believe you’re referring to people who are personally against abortion but also wish to ban it? – Most such people I imagine would be influenced to take such a position not through their political beliefs but their religious views. There are pro-lifers on all sides of the political spectrum, George Galloway for instance is deeply pro-life.
And how the hell is conservatism pro-censorship? Politicians of different creeds; Labour, LibDem and Conservative probably favour some age restrictions for films and computer games. But that’s a matter of child protection not censorship. (Not that I think it’s particularly effective). I support banning child pornography, does that make me pro-censorship? – You’ll find Labour, through their support of the ‘religious hatred’ act is taking a far more ‘pro-censorship’ line than any Conservative government has.
Conservatism is a vague and loose term admittedly, you’re blurring authoritarianism and religious views with aspects of conservatism – you might make more sense if you tied the attributes you mentioned earlier to a particular element within conservatism. Although I can’t think of any mainstream Conservative body in the UK that fits your view of conservatism.
I’d say parents who smoke in an enclosed space in the presence of young children are guilty of bad parenting. Exposure to cigarette smoke could also actually physically harm a child, certainly more so than a light tap. Shall we ban parents from smoking in the same room as children? Passing laws that can only be enforced by abusing people’s privacy and civil liberties – or go unenforced should not be encouraged
Who made you the judge of good parenting? Really, mind your own business.
How does it? Are you saying parents that smack their children think their children are their personal property? Bollocks.
In safe, childproof environments it should be noted. A parent takes a toddler to the shops, the toddler runs out into the road and nearly gets run over. Or a toddler sticks its fingers in an electric plug. I don’t think it’s for us to judge a parent who gives the toddler a tap on the hand. I’m not a parent, I’m in no position to judge and it’s clearly not child abuse so it truly is none of my business. What makes you feel that you have some kind of right to tell parents how to bring up their kids – when you’re not even a parent yourself?
Conservatism ‘as a concept’ covers lots of different things that can sometimes be contradictory. There's nothing in conservatism as a concept that is universally the things you earlier described.
i gave my personal opinion on whether i like it or not - i don't like it, i wouldnt want it banned though, much like my view of the BNP
i actively recognise most people's right to choose on certain things, when it affects other people in a seriously negative way like inciting violence, or bringing a baby into the world for the wrong reasons, like any sane person i do like to personally debate the legal side of it
They don't think it. That's the thing, they usually aren't thinking at the time. They act like it though.
Do you agree that children learn a large amount of their behaviour from their parents? If a parent uses violence (however minor) to get their child to comply with a certain type of behaviour, does it not stand to reason that their children will then consider that an acceptable way of getting someone else to do what they want or resolving their disputes? Again, studies have shown a direct corrolation between smacking and increased aggression in childhood. They have also shown that whilst smacking tends to result in the child complying with the desired behaviour in the short term, they do not learn why their actions are wrong.
I understand that such a law would be fairly unenforcable, and it's not this sort of case which you are looking to reduce. It's the case where a child is screaming and shouting while the parent has a million other things to do. In this situation, some parents would put everything down and smack their child to get them to comply. If in the back of their mind, they know that it's not allowed, they are more likely to take a second and come up with a more productive solution. For all of the studies that show the negative effects of smacking, of course there are some that also show that it doesn't have any negative effects (as is always the case). However, I've never read a single extract from any study suggesting that it's actually beneficial to the child, or effective parenting in any way.
I’ve never looked into this before but a quick look on google finds conflicting views from experts..
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/320/7248/1538/a
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/320/7230/261
Exactly.
We agree on something!
They support religious discrimination?
Reminds me of a newsletter our union sent round which claimed they were anti-racism, anti-homphobia and anti-semitic
Oops, corrected it now.
Itwas late last night when I posted it... Brain has been on the blink for a while now...
Guh