The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Something that always concerned me...
I've always been an advocate for freedom or speech, beliefs, etc... The indiviudals right to make their own lifestyle choices, and for the rights of the people to be decided by the people, and not those, the minority, who have decided that they know best...
However... I'm also against the Death Penalty...
A penalty, which, I understand the majority of the country really wouldnt mind having back...
And as such, I'm rather pleased that the peoples views are being overlooked for the bigger picture...
However, this goes against my original concept... What gives these people, the minority, the right to decide to implement a rule against the beliefs of the majority... why is their consideration more correct than that of the majority? To the same mark, what makes my point of view more valid than those of the masses?
Just because I think its wrong, doesnt mean I'm right.
How does it become right for the few to develop certain rfulings/laws in which to govern the masses, and still maintain the rights of the individual and the masses to govern themselves in the way they see fit?
I've always been an advocate for freedom or speech, beliefs, etc... The indiviudals right to make their own lifestyle choices, and for the rights of the people to be decided by the people, and not those, the minority, who have decided that they know best...
However... I'm also against the Death Penalty...
A penalty, which, I understand the majority of the country really wouldnt mind having back...
And as such, I'm rather pleased that the peoples views are being overlooked for the bigger picture...
However, this goes against my original concept... What gives these people, the minority, the right to decide to implement a rule against the beliefs of the majority... why is their consideration more correct than that of the majority? To the same mark, what makes my point of view more valid than those of the masses?
Just because I think its wrong, doesnt mean I'm right.
How does it become right for the few to develop certain rfulings/laws in which to govern the masses, and still maintain the rights of the individual and the masses to govern themselves in the way they see fit?
In an ideal world, yes.
But that can't happen and won't happen, because most people are utterly clueless outside of tv shows and their front door.
Should we have the death penalty?
I dont know, personally I dont like that. It's primitive and harks back to ancient times when religion governed through fear.
The Majority does decide to an extent, but what people forget is that those in power are there because they are elected and chosen to represent us.
We dont like them? Vote them out.
But people are dumb, they forget so easily and just carry on with their own lives worrying about who'll be evicted from the house this week, and that scares me.
Tony Blair...landslide victory. I remember, last year the public calling for him to resign due to the petrol crisis.
Everyone was screaming for blood.
Why?
Because The Sun said so.
Same with the Bulger killers.
"THEY SHOULD BE KILLED!"
And the mob descends and rips them to shreds.
I don't know, it is a scary phenomenon that when people mass together, they lose the ability to think and act like a flock of birds, all scattering according to the person in front.
We hear about Barry George because it's sensationalist, we dont hear about Saptal Ram being in prison without any question of his innocence.
Nobody cares.
We hear about the Bulger killers being released, we don't hear a single thing today about Milosevic being at The Hague.
Finally, after the slaughter of almost 2 millions Ethnic Albanians by approved hit-squads, he goes on trial today.
And there aint a thing about it in most papers.
People dont care enough about the world outside their window to really make choices that affect anyone but themselves.
This is why our civil rights are eroded bit by bit each day, and nobody says anything.
The majority are unable to think in a wide enough picture to be able to make rules and changes for everyone.
That is why, I think, we are better off with rules and laws.
Not all of them, and I agree that we should have a say.
But we DO have a say, you can call a referendum on any subject you want to at local council, and it has to be taken up in Parliment by your MP.
But how many people know about this?
Hardly any, it takes effort and research to get this info, and that;s too much like hard work for the average person.
But that can't happen and won't happen, because most people are utterly clueless outside of tv shows and their front door.
Should we have the death penalty?
I dont know, personally I dont like that. It's primitive and harks back to ancient times when religion governed through fear.
The Majority does decide to an extent, but what people forget is that those in power are there because they are elected and chosen to represent us.
We dont like them? Vote them out.
But people are dumb, they forget so easily and just carry on with their own lives worrying about who'll be evicted from the house this week, and that scares me.
Tony Blair...landslide victory. I remember, last year the public calling for him to resign due to the petrol crisis.
Everyone was screaming for blood.
Why?
Because The Sun said so.
Same with the Bulger killers.
"THEY SHOULD BE KILLED!"
And the mob descends and rips them to shreds.
I don't know, it is a scary phenomenon that when people mass together, they lose the ability to think and act like a flock of birds, all scattering according to the person in front.
We hear about Barry George because it's sensationalist, we dont hear about Saptal Ram being in prison without any question of his innocence.
Nobody cares.
We hear about the Bulger killers being released, we don't hear a single thing today about Milosevic being at The Hague.
Finally, after the slaughter of almost 2 millions Ethnic Albanians by approved hit-squads, he goes on trial today.
And there aint a thing about it in most papers.
People dont care enough about the world outside their window to really make choices that affect anyone but themselves.
This is why our civil rights are eroded bit by bit each day, and nobody says anything.
The majority are unable to think in a wide enough picture to be able to make rules and changes for everyone.
That is why, I think, we are better off with rules and laws.
Not all of them, and I agree that we should have a say.
But we DO have a say, you can call a referendum on any subject you want to at local council, and it has to be taken up in Parliment by your MP.
But how many people know about this?
Hardly any, it takes effort and research to get this info, and that;s too much like hard work for the average person.
Shouldnt the laws be chosen and goverend by the choices of the masses?
Shouldnt the Death Penalty be once again implemented, given the people desire?
Shouldnt the people be allowed to make their own mistakes... and then to reap what they sow?
It would certainly provide some interesting results
(altough give me some time to run for cover first :) )
And, who knows, in the long run, maybe people will think about the choices they make... and take a little responcibility for the results?
Shouldnt the Death Penalty be once again implemented, given the people desire?
Shouldnt the people be allowed to make their own mistakes... and then to reap what they sow?
It would certainly provide some interesting results
(altough give me some time to run for cover first :) )
And, who knows, in the long run, maybe people will think about the choices they make... and take a little responcibility for the results?
Tricky subject to handle.
As much as I believe in individual freedom of thought, action and belief, I also believe there needs to be a basic set of rules to govern - otherwise anarchy follows.
There is a saying that goes "Revolution never works, because the alternative is just as bad" which I think stands true.
You can't leave everything to "the people" to decide, because unfortunately when people get together, they lose the ability to think coherently and it degenerates into mass confusion.
This has been offered as the reason that people like Hitler, Stalin and Mao were able to get whole nations to commite atrocities - you need someone prepared to speak up and loudly,and people will enivitably follow suit.
Without a system of control and organistation, things rapidly fall into confusion and stupidity.
It's trying to balance that, to draw a line and make the distinction - and unfortunately that is always open to abuse of interpretation.
Mass opinion can be so easily swayed, be it "The Sun Backs Bubble" or any other of sweeping statements that a lot of people will read and follow.
I'm not just popping at The Sun here, but it's a good example.
"Don't Let us Down Tony" before the general election, and "It was the Sun Wot Won it" followed shortly afterwards.
And, unfortunately, I think a majority of people will just go "Oh, ok" and carry on watching Big Brother and Eastenders.
A person is clever, people are stupid.
You need a system of rule to make sure we all don't revert back to swinging through the trees and bashing each other with sticks when we disagree with ourselves.
So, to an extent, total freedom is a good thing but there is also an inherent danger, because with total freedom comes lack of responsibility.
And, total freedom also means that EVERYONE has the right to that. Even if that person is a neo-nazi, child molesting thug, he has to be allowed to do what he wants and say what he feels with impunity.
This can never be a black and white argument, wars have been fought since the dawn of man over who gets to say what we do.
And that's fine, I agree with that.
But it can go to the other extreme of total control and a regime that is intolerable.
South America, specifically Nicaragua, has had a regime that utilises snatch-squads sanctioned by the goverment to silence and remove those it sees as harmful to the party line.
Which is bad enough, but when you start to realise that the CIA had more than a hand in this, through rigged elections and US sanctioned political leaders, funded through several legit US companies (one run, incidentally by a George W Bush in 1983), then you start to see how the influence and appeal of control can be taken to a more insidious level.
. . . .
Er...I dont know where that came from..I should probably make a joke about monkeys now or something.
As much as I believe in individual freedom of thought, action and belief, I also believe there needs to be a basic set of rules to govern - otherwise anarchy follows.
There is a saying that goes "Revolution never works, because the alternative is just as bad" which I think stands true.
You can't leave everything to "the people" to decide, because unfortunately when people get together, they lose the ability to think coherently and it degenerates into mass confusion.
This has been offered as the reason that people like Hitler, Stalin and Mao were able to get whole nations to commite atrocities - you need someone prepared to speak up and loudly,and people will enivitably follow suit.
Without a system of control and organistation, things rapidly fall into confusion and stupidity.
It's trying to balance that, to draw a line and make the distinction - and unfortunately that is always open to abuse of interpretation.
Mass opinion can be so easily swayed, be it "The Sun Backs Bubble" or any other of sweeping statements that a lot of people will read and follow.
I'm not just popping at The Sun here, but it's a good example.
"Don't Let us Down Tony" before the general election, and "It was the Sun Wot Won it" followed shortly afterwards.
And, unfortunately, I think a majority of people will just go "Oh, ok" and carry on watching Big Brother and Eastenders.
A person is clever, people are stupid.
You need a system of rule to make sure we all don't revert back to swinging through the trees and bashing each other with sticks when we disagree with ourselves.
So, to an extent, total freedom is a good thing but there is also an inherent danger, because with total freedom comes lack of responsibility.
And, total freedom also means that EVERYONE has the right to that. Even if that person is a neo-nazi, child molesting thug, he has to be allowed to do what he wants and say what he feels with impunity.
This can never be a black and white argument, wars have been fought since the dawn of man over who gets to say what we do.
And that's fine, I agree with that.
But it can go to the other extreme of total control and a regime that is intolerable.
South America, specifically Nicaragua, has had a regime that utilises snatch-squads sanctioned by the goverment to silence and remove those it sees as harmful to the party line.
Which is bad enough, but when you start to realise that the CIA had more than a hand in this, through rigged elections and US sanctioned political leaders, funded through several legit US companies (one run, incidentally by a George W Bush in 1983), then you start to see how the influence and appeal of control can be taken to a more insidious level.
. . . .
Er...I dont know where that came from..I should probably make a joke about monkeys now or something.
Something that always concerned me...
I've always been an advocate for freedom or speech, beliefs, etc... The indiviudals right to make their own lifestyle choices, and for the rights of the people to be decided by the people, and not those, the minority, who have decided that they know best...
However... I'm also against the Death Penalty...
A penalty, which, I understand the majority of the country really wouldnt mind having back...
And as such, I'm rather pleased that the peoples views are being overlooked for the bigger picture...
However, this goes against my original concept... What gives these people, the minority, the right to decide to implement a rule against the beliefs of the majority... why is their consideration more correct than that of the majority? To the same mark, what makes my point of view more valid than those of the masses?
Just because I think its wrong, doesnt mean I'm right.
How does it become right for the few to develop certain rfulings/laws in which to govern the masses, and still maintain the rights of the individual and the masses to govern themselves in the way they see fit?
I've always been an advocate for freedom or speech, beliefs, etc... The indiviudals right to make their own lifestyle choices, and for the rights of the people to be decided by the people, and not those, the minority, who have decided that they know best...
However... I'm also against the Death Penalty...
A penalty, which, I understand the majority of the country really wouldnt mind having back...
And as such, I'm rather pleased that the peoples views are being overlooked for the bigger picture...
However, this goes against my original concept... What gives these people, the minority, the right to decide to implement a rule against the beliefs of the majority... why is their consideration more correct than that of the majority? To the same mark, what makes my point of view more valid than those of the masses?
Just because I think its wrong, doesnt mean I'm right.
How does it become right for the few to develop certain rfulings/laws in which to govern the masses, and still maintain the rights of the individual and the masses to govern themselves in the way they see fit?