David Cameron Fights for oppression and destruction of western ideals

In the wake of the devastating Paris terrorist attacks, British Prime Minister David Cameron said encrypted messaging services pose a national security threat because they can’t be easily monitored by intelligence agencies.

“The attacks in Paris demonstrated the scale of the threat that we face and the need to have robust powers through our intelligence and security agencies in order to keep our people safe,” Cameron said Monday, speaking at an event in London on how to best protect the country from terrorist attacks.

If re-elected in May, Cameron promised to ban encrypted online communication services — unless tech companies give British intelligence special access. Those backdoor permissions would be folded into legislation requiring telecommunications companies and broadband providers to collect and store citizens’ online communications.

“Are we going to allow a means of communications which it simply isn’t possible to read?” he said. “My answer to that question is: ‘No, we must not.’”

Cameron’s comments come a week after Paris suffered three days of fatal terrorist attacks that killed 17 people — 12 of whom were massacred at satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo’s offices Jan. 7.

The British government hasn’t been particularly amenable to the privacy movement; it notoriously forced London-based newspaper the Guardian in 2013 to destroy hard drives containing NSA files leaked by Edward Snowden. But Cameron’s stance contradicts movements from other European countries which have balked at intense government surveillance and tried to crack down on U.S. internet companies for violating citizens’ privacy rights.

Russia and Germany vowed earlier this year to switch to paper communications, handwritten notes and typewriters to avoid detection, while other countries are working on enhancing their own intelligence programs. Germany also said it would end its contract with U.S. wireless carrier Verizon because of legal requirements “to provide certain things to the NSA,” according to the German Interior Ministry.

Brasidas wrote:Still what is worse here is the argument you are both using is moot, because nobody has so far achieved what you claim, to then use this as a means to deny the ability to track terrorism. You have failed to show how this assist in tracking terrorist

That has to be the most backhanded argument to date, again trying a loop hole to get around people hiding something which never once answered why people should need a reason to hide anything, because again what have people to hide. Because it is a right it always has been, so the BURDEN is on you to present reason why we should surrender it, So far you have present NONE only ignorance of the ways information can be encoded.(so does Cameron)

Nice attempt at deflecting round this I must say and was for a minute nearly bought by it.

darknessss wrote:I'm glad someone knows what I'm on about...I thought I was going potty.....

and for bras.....who do you think was part of a team that created the first 5bit CRC code (ok so that was only used for CRC checks ....the system the checks that the "packets" of info sent via a network have not been corrupted) but it was that that led to the 13th prime number 128 bit encryption in use as ssl security today......

Brasidas wrote:Still what is worse here is the argument you are both using is moot, because nobody has so far achieved what you claim, to then use this as a means to deny the ability to track terrorism.

how would YOU know?

That has to be the most backhanded argument to date, again trying a loop hole to get around people hiding something which never once answered why people should need a reason to hide anything, because again what have people to hide.

there should be a right to "hide things" simply because society has no RIGHT to everything
there should be a right to "hide things" because NO govt is 100% benevolent
there should be a right to hide things because the risk/benefit is NOT in our favour
there should be a right to hide things because just because YOU think some things are morally reprehensible does NOT give you the right to judge
there should be a right to hide things simply because we are NOT clones in a hive...
finally there should be a right to hide things because NO govt is trustworthy.... the people that "run it" are NOT there for the good of either your, mine or their health...they are there for their benefit (almost soley financial)
finally finally ...it is a bloody fool that trusts govt.......

Nice attempt at deflecting round this I must say and was for a minute nearly bought by it.

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:I'm glad someone knows what I'm on about...I thought I was going potty.....

and for bras.....who do you think was part of a team that created the first 5bit CRC code (ok so that was only used for CRC checks ....the system the checks that the "packets" of info sent via a network have not been corrupted) but it was that that led to the 13th prime number 128 bit encryption in use as ssl security today......

So back to maths again ha ha
No I have seen past this poor argument and I knew what you meant but as seen you are using something that has never even been a reality to base a vie to attempt to deny denying encrypted chat apps.

sorry? I genuinely dont understand this sentence....be more precise...WHAT has never been a reality???


It was a very poor deflection attempting to get away fro the moral points I posed.
Nice try but was the worst excuse I have seen to try and make the argument to allow people to hide things, which has no validity

veya_victaous wrote: You have failed to show how this assist in tracking terrorist

Because it is a right it always has been, so the BURDEN is on you to present reason why we should surrender it, So far you have present NONE only ignorance of the ways information can be encoded.(so does Cameron)

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

So back to maths again ha ha
No I have seen past this poor argument and I knew what you meant but as seen you are using something that has never even been a reality to base a vie to attempt to deny denying encrypted chat apps.

sorry? I genuinely dont understand this sentence....be more precise...WHAT has never been a reality???


It was a very poor deflection attempting to get away fro the moral points I posed.
Nice try but was the worst excuse I have seen to try and make the argument to allow people to hide things, which has no validity

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:

That the argument you are using to claim we should not use measures or prevention is based on a theoretical concept, which has not been perfected.
Utterly clutching at straws.
So something not yet achieved is your argument.
That is babble, plain and simple
Which deflects from the fact you give better credit to the terrorists than I do, they have some experts, but not even in that league.

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



That the argument you are using to claim we should not use measures or prevention is based on a theoretical concept, which has not been perfected.
Utterly clutching at straws.
So something not yet achieved is your argument.
That is babble, plain and simple
Which deflects from the fact you give better credit to the terrorists than I do, they have some experts, but not even in that league.

a 10 year oold can use a "one time pad"

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:

a 10 year oold can use a "one time pad"

Oh for fuck sake!

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Oh for fuck sake!

now you know how i feel...

darknessss wrote:but anyway....


there should be a right to "hide things" simply because society has no RIGHT to everything
No moral or ethical reason, just selfish needs, not the needs of others
there should be a right to "hide things" because NO govt is 100% benevolent
No moral or ethical reason, just selfish needs, not the needs of others
there should be a right to hide things because the risk/benefit is NOT in our favour
No moral or ethical reason, just selfish needs, not the needs of others
there should be a right to hide things because just because YOU think some things are morally reprehensible does NOT give you the right to judge
No moral or ethical reason, just selfish needs, not the needs of others
there should be a right to hide things simply because we are NOT clones in a hive..
No moral or ethical reason, just selfish needs, not the needs of others.
finally there should be a right to hide things because NO govt is trustworthy.... the people that "run it" are NOT there for the good of either your, mine or their health...they are there for their benefit (almost soley financial)
No moral or ethical reason, just selfish needs, not the needs of others
finally finally ...it is a bloody fool that trusts govt.......

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:

That the argument you are using to claim we should not use measures or prevention is based on a theoretical concept, which has not been perfected.
Utterly clutching at straws.
So something not yet achieved is your argument.
That is babble, plain and simple
Which deflects from the fact you give better credit to the terrorists than I do, they have some experts, but not even in that league.

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:but anyway....


there should be a right to "hide things" simply because society has no RIGHT to everything
No moral or ethical reason, just selfish needs, not the needs of others
there should be a right to "hide things" because NO govt is 100% benevolent
No moral or ethical reason, just selfish needs, not the needs of others
there should be a right to hide things because the risk/benefit is NOT in our favour
No moral or ethical reason, just selfish needs, not the needs of others
there should be a right to hide things because just because YOU think some things are morally reprehensible does NOT give you the right to judge
No moral or ethical reason, just selfish needs, not the needs of others
there should be a right to hide things simply because we are NOT clones in a hive..
No moral or ethical reason, just selfish needs, not the needs of others.
finally there should be a right to hide things because NO govt is trustworthy.... the people that "run it" are NOT there for the good of either your, mine or their health...they are there for their benefit (almost soley financial)
No moral or ethical reason, just selfish needs, not the needs of others
finally finally ...it is a bloody fool that trusts govt.......

No moral or ethical reason, just selfish needs, not the needs of others

All your reasons were based on what you perceive you need or view, not the views of others

I thought you believe in democracy

Again the facilities you use and to communicate,are made possible only by others and what others have created, which you are nothing ore than  guest to use. Does that give you the right once you decide to use something others who control this what they own and control to be kept hidden?
I do not think so


As soon as you use this to communicate you lose all rights to any privacy

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



That the argument you are using to claim we should not use measures or prevention is based on a theoretical concept, which has not been perfected.
Utterly clutching at straws.
So something not yet achieved is your argument.
That is babble, plain and simple
Which deflects from the fact you give better credit to the terrorists than I do, they have some experts, but not even in that league.

Now that is a point upon which we can agree....I have often said (going back to the IRA ) that it is as well for us that in general, terrorists, especially at the sharp end, are plain stupid.

mind you some of em aint daft either....

"how to cost the infidel a fortune for £20 quid......"

stick a working microwave out on a hil and break the door lock so it runs with the door open....point it at an infidels fighter plane

plane thinks "shit missile radar" and fires £250,000 HARM missile at £20 microwave....WIN.........
because if ever they got smart we would be in deep do do....

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:
No moral or ethical reason, just selfish needs, not the needs of others

All your reasons were based on what you perceive you need or view, not the views of others

I thought you believe in democracy

Again the facilities you use and to communicate,are made possible only by others and what others have created, which you are nothing ore than  guest to use. Does that give you the right once you decide to use something others who control this what they own and control to be kept hidden?
I do not think so


As soon as you use this to communicate you lose all rights to any privacy

so then folks decide to force the issue...

lets refuse to use Internet banking...and FORCE all business to go back to face to face
fuck ebay and all other internet sales...
refuse to use email, force your boss to communicate face to face ...

ok...not likely to happen ...too many shit scared sheep about....

your answers are bull shit...

thats like saying i have no right to use my car except under direct supervision and subject to keeping a detailed log of all journeys...because I personally didnt "invent it"
the govt (and by extension society) cannot claim to "own" the internet....

so your somewhat monotonous reply is negated....

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:

so then folks decide to force the issue...

lets refuse to use Internet banking...and FORCE all business to go back to face to face
fuck ebay and all other internet sales...
refuse to use email, force your boss to communicate face to face ...

ok...not likely to happen ...too many shit scared sheep about....

your answers are bull shit...

thats like saying i have no right to use my car except under direct supervision and subject to keeping a detailed log of all journeys...because I personally didnt "invent it"
the govt (and by extension society) cannot claim to "own" the internet....

so your somewhat monotonous reply is negated....

lol good luck with that.
First you need support
Second base off the view why to have the ability to hide what you do not need to hide from a security point of view.
Nobody said you do not have a right, hence your confusion, but you are trying to claim something you use and communicate with, that you do not own or controlled should be based around your beliefs.
Think again, you are just a guest in using that facility, hence why you do not have a leg to stand on this Victor. You allow someone to use your car and then they hide damaging that car from you and you later find out, what would you do?

Brasidas wrote:

veya_victaous wrote: You have failed to show how this assist in tracking terrorist

Because it is a right it always has been, so the BURDEN is on you to present reason why we should surrender it, So far you have present NONE only ignorance of the ways information can be encoded.(so does Cameron)

Surrender your ability to hide things, which you have no reason to hide.
The burden is on you to show what you claim you are losing? NO ITS NOT THAT IS NOT THE WAY IT WORKS YOU PROPOSE CHANGE YOU NEED TO SHOW WHY THE PREVIOUS STATE NEEDS CHANGE
The fact is we already know there is a dark internet is their not Veya, what goes on there? SO NOW YOUR ATTACKING ANONYMOUS Sorry but your on your own there they have proven that the stand for the western ideals of justice and freedom far more than Cameron
We know terrorists are using encrypted apps to conspire terrorist acts NO THEY DO NOT ZERO EVIDENCE OF THAT
The view here is again trying to argue for the act of deceit within a nation, where again nobody can offer me  valid reason why anyone needs to hide anything, where the later balance of life far outweighs your own personal needs.
The facilities we are using you never created, nor the satellites that enable us to communicate as we are posting now, you are allowed to use them based off collective cooperation, exactly "collective cooperation to an agreed set of rules" ONE of which was that we were allowed to hide information to protect our selves, we do have legal protections from incriminating ourselves our or families. So Why do you think you get to change the agreement for shared infrastructure? there is NO SAFETY GAIN no one has yet shown how this can stop even a single terrorist attack yet feel you can then withhold something you re only a guest on a system you use.
Do you own what makes work the ability for us to communicate? NEITHER DOES THE GOV'T One of the biggest opponents in Australia has been iiNET and ISP owner of the infrastructure that the communication is travelling on
Yet you seem to think you do. Seem you are the one mistaken about ownership there

And Again Why should I change just because you wet your pants in terror
your the one who needs to change... You're the one wearing stained pants

darknessss wrote:finally and the biggest flaw in your argument is
No moral or ethical reason, just selfish needs, not the needs of others
why does  there have to be any moral or ethical argument....?
Of course there has to be, you have to justify why you feel you should keep things private over the needs of security for a nation?
and why should the "needs of others " be an overwhelming factor....
OMG, did you really just say that?
The fact that we all need each other to function as a nation may have escaped you. Though you maybe able to function on your own, you still live in a land you share with others

those "others" dont give a shit about me in the great scheme of things....and would, no doubt, if they could and were privy to anything they thought would be "useful" use it to their advantage.
So your view is one of selfishness, well you live here and we also have some others who do not give a shit and your view would be to deport them would it not because they do not integrate. Should this aplly to you based on your view above>

For instance....
a bloke is having an affair
it is discovered by the "snoopers"
it is filed
later someone "loses" that file and it falls into someone elses hands....
what then???
That made no utter sense, why was he having an affair in the first place?
The right and ethical thing to do would be to admit his relationship was over and leave his relationship, not again do the worst thing and hide what he is doing being decietful

OR it is decided that "someone" is needed to do something "dirty" for the govt ...so he is "pressurised with that tit bit of info
If he is snooped upon it is for good reason because he is dishonest, unless you think dishonest people should be free to act dishonestly?
I certainly do not, as basically you are rewarding dishonesty

dont say WONT happen....because it has happened....


regardless of YOUR self righteous  mutterings....that bloke has an irredeemable right to utter privacy in that matter....
you are like the mouldy old woman peeking out from behind the curtains that was the "street gossip"  liked to know everything that everyone did    

veya_victaous wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Surrender your ability to hide things, which you have no reason to hide.
The burden is on you to show what you claim you are losing? NO ITS NOT THAT IS NOT THE WAY IT WORKS YOU PROPOSE CHANGE YOU NEED TO SHOW WHY THE PREVIOUS STATE NEEDS CHANGE
The fact is we already know there is a dark internet is their not Veya, what goes on there? SO NOW YOUR ATTACKING ANONYMOUS Sorry but your on your own there they have proven that the stand for the western ideals of justice and freedom far more than Cameron
We know terrorists are using encrypted apps to conspire terrorist acts NO THEY DO NOT ZERO EVIDENCE OF THAT
The view here is again trying to argue for the act of deceit within a nation, where again nobody can offer me  valid reason why anyone needs to hide anything, where the later balance of life far outweighs your own personal needs.
The facilities we are using you never created, nor the satellites that enable us to communicate as we are posting now, you are allowed to use them based off collective cooperation, exactly "collective cooperation to an agreed set of rules" ONE of which was that we were allowed to hide information to protect our selves, we do have legal protections from incriminating ourselves our or families. So Why do you think you get to change the agreement for shared infrastructure? there is NO SAFETY GAIN no one has yet shown how this can stop even a single terrorist attack yet feel you can then withhold something you re only a guest on a system you use.
Do you own what makes work the ability for us to communicate?  NEITHER DOES THE GOV'T One of the biggest opponents in Australia has been iiNET and ISP owner of the infrastructure that the communication is travelling on
Yet you seem to think you do. Seem you are the one mistaken about ownership there      

And Again Why should I change just because you wet your pants in terror
your the one who needs to change... You're the one wearing stained pants

And We are CAPITALIST we don't Live our lives for the Cowardly desires of others (not needs their is no Need for this) we live our lives For PERSONAL Gain to complete our individual desires.  when Murdoch gives away his fortune 'for the needs of others' (more people starve and could be feed from his fortune in a year than total deaths from terrorist in the last 100 years) then we can talk until then that is RUBBISH we are not Commies! we are Selfish as the System says we have to be to survive, really if we want to Thrive we have to be EVEN more selfish than most of us are.

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:finally and the biggest flaw in your argument is
No moral or ethical reason, just selfish needs, not the needs of others
why does  there have to be any moral or ethical argument....?
Of course there has to be, you have to justify why you feel you should keep things private over the needs of security for a nation?
and why should the "needs of others " be an overwhelming factor....
OMG, did you really just say that?
The fact that we all need each other to function as a nation may have escaped you. Though you maybe able to function on your own, you still live in a land you share with others

those "others" dont give a shit about me in the great scheme of things....and would, no doubt, if they could and were privy to anything they thought would be "useful" use it to their advantage.
So your view is one of selfishness, well you live here and we also have some others who do not give a shit and your view would be to deport them would it not because they do not integrate. Should this aplly to you based on your view above>

For instance....
a bloke is having an affair
it is discovered by the "snoopers"
it is filed
later someone "loses" that file and it falls into someone elses hands....
what then???
That made no utter sense, why was he having an affair in the first place? maybe he was unhappy with his missus...maybe he was the victim of abuse??
The right and ethical thing to do would be to admit his relationship was over and leave his relationship, not again do the worst thing and hide what he is doing being decietful but again...like many in an abuseive relationship he could see no way out...or perhaps he mistakenly thought it was "better for the kids" and took what comfort he could "elsewhere" ...you SHOULD NOT JUDGE....

OR it is decided that "someone" is needed to do something "dirty" for the govt ...so he is "pressurised with that tit bit of info
If he is snooped upon it is for good reason because he is dishonest, unless you think dishonest people should be free to act dishonestly?
I certainly do not, as basically you are rewarding dishonesty "sorry didge you are comming over all "moraly superior" again...I have seen the same "ideal" promulgated by the very people we are supposed to be against. There are times when being "dishonest" MAY well be, or at least appear to be the best policy again you have no right to judge...

dont say WONT happen....because it has happened....


regardless of YOUR self righteous  mutterings....that bloke has an irredeemable right to utter privacy in that matter....
you are like the mouldy old woman peeking out from behind the curtains that was the "street gossip"  liked to know everything that everyone did    

So back to views on me

"yeah...but they are accurate views"

game over

Brasidas wrote:If he is unhappy or a victim of abuse is still no reason to cheat, he should leave his relationship. There is still no ethical reason to cheat, the view is you basing a right to cheat, when there never is, that is just absurd. Yes there are people afraid to act to get out of relationships, which can be overcome. Some countries this is more difficult, but it is still not a reason to be unfaithful. I a not judging but basing this on what is morally right, where you are trying to make something justifiable with a view to cheat.
So the view would be to break from that relationship and how this can be done based on the situation, it though does not justify having an affair.

Not worries about views on me mate, they just show you can answer less of my points and merely deflect

Brasidas wrote:If he is unhappy or a victim of abuse is still no reason to cheat, he should leave his relationship. There is still no ethical reason to cheat, the view is you basing a right to cheat, when there never is, that is just absurd. Yes there are people afraid to act to get out of relationships, which can be overcome. Some countries this is more difficult, but it is still not a reason to be unfaithful. I a not judging but basing this on what is morally right, where you are trying to make something justifiable with a view to cheat.
So the view would be to break from that relationship and how this can be done based on the situation, it though does not justify having an affair.
How is there no right to cheat(it not even about rights)? because some religious institution has bullied people into monogamy. LIFE does not play by the imaginary rules you seem to think exist. even legally there is no consequence for being unfaithful, my opinion on the matter is irrelevant so I will not even give it, Just going by the Legal agreements citizens have established.

So you think we need Sharia law so there is consequence to being unfaithful? I think society already tried that and decide NOPE that was bad and we are better off letting people be free even if sometimes it means they are not nice.

Not worries about views on me mate, they just show you can answer less of my points and merely deflect

veya_victaous wrote:

Brasidas wrote:If he is unhappy or a victim of abuse is still no reason to cheat, he should leave his relationship. There is still no ethical reason to cheat, the view is you basing a right to cheat, when there never is, that is just absurd. Yes there are people afraid to act to get out of relationships, which can be overcome. Some countries this is more difficult, but it is still not a reason to be unfaithful. I a not judging but basing this on what is morally right, where you are trying to make something justifiable with a view to cheat.
So the view would be to break from that relationship and how this can be done based on the situation, it though does not justify having an affair.
How is there no right to cheat(it not even about rights)? because some religious institution has bullied people into monogamy. LIFE does not play by the imaginary rules you seem to think exist. even legally there is no consequence for being unfaithful, my opinion on the matter is irrelevant so I will not even give it, Just going by the Legal agreements citizens have established.

So you think we need Sharia law so there is consequence to being unfaithful? I think society already tried that and decide NOPE that was bad and we are better off letting people be free even if sometimes it means they are not nice.

Not worries about views on me mate, they just show you can answer less of my points and merely deflect

Brasidas wrote:Yes we all need each other very much.
Again how would you have survived from birth without the help of others Veya. I need some help but not most members of society
How would you survive if ill to the point of incapacity without others help? I need some help but not most members of society, Immediate family could be sufficient
Do you think we should just leave people to starve to death, if they cannot feed themselves? Not about my opinion it is about the Social Agreement we have in place, we have agreed to create a safety net to minimise this, we didn't have to the USA hasn't
Should we allow people with physical disabilities to fend for themselves
Lets start with that? Not about my opinion it is about the Social Agreement we have in place, we have agreed to create a safety net to minimise this, we didn't have to the USA hasn't

veya_victaous wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Yes we all need each other very much.
Again how would you have survived from birth without the help of others Veya. I need some help but not most members of society
How would you survive if ill to the point of incapacity without others help? I need some help but not most members of society, Immediate family could be sufficient
Do you think we should just leave people to starve to death, if they cannot feed themselves? Not about my opinion it is about the Social Agreement we have in place, we have agreed to create a safety net to minimise this, we didn't have to the USA hasn't
Should we allow people with physical disabilities to fend for themselves
Lets start with that?  Not about my opinion it is about the Social Agreement we have in place, we have agreed to create a safety net to minimise this, we didn't have to the USA hasn't

So how does that in any support spending money for NO GAIN      

Brasidas wrote:Where did sharia come into it by the way?
Again you are basing a view they cannot leave a relationship based on a law that I do not agree with, failed principle, what is wrong then is the law in that country. It is still not a reason to have an affair.

That was idiotic

veya_victaous wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Where did sharia come into it by the way?
Again you are basing a view they cannot leave a relationship based on a law that I do not agree with, failed principle, what is wrong then is the law in that country. It is still not a reason to have an affair.

That was idiotic

you are suggesting their should be legislation for theocratic defined morals the number 1 example of such legal systems in the world currently is Sharia.

THIS would be Why me Like Franklin Say you are WRONG!!!

Why do you need a reason? Freedom means they don't even need to see it as Wrong

darknessss wrote:this is like the argument over the heath service "internetting" your doctors notes..I have told em NO!
they claim it will improve your treatment in an emergency and on the face if it this "seems" reasonable but they refuse to give 100% assurance that its secure , only sayiong they will take "reasonable" steps. they refuse to rule out the possibility of sharing with "other agencies" or indeed "other bodies". there is NO guarantee that this info will ot be shared with insurance companies to allow then to rip you off further...etc etc etc...

I told em NO...NO WAY....

there are 4 things about me the emergency first reponders need to know about me...non of which I regard as "sensitive"

1 I am  tablet and diet controlled diabetic
2 I am allergic to sulphonamides
3 WARNING TO EMERGENCY PERSONELL...this vehicle MAY be carrying firearms and ammunition in the secured locker in the rear. Please treat with caution and seek the assistance of a firearms officer.
4 next of kin ...wife phone XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. Daughter ..phone XXXXXXXXXXX
all of which info is contained in a small document which resides in my now redundant tax disc holder who's front cover reads. FAO EMERGENCY RESPONDERS in bright red on yellow background

Brasidas wrote:The same principle applies to all.
You created the example of a man, I just continued that.
It matters not whether male or female, to go behind someones back to cheat is ethically wrong
If people refuse to leave a relationship, then they are at fault as they not for not doing so, which would be even worse if they are then cheating denying the chance to be with that person if they had left their relationship?
Are you now claiming fear cannot be overcome?

Next

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:this is like the argument over the heath service "internetting" your doctors notes..I have told em NO!
they claim it will improve your treatment in an emergency and on the face if it this "seems" reasonable but they refuse to give 100% assurance that its secure , only sayiong they will take "reasonable" steps. they refuse to rule out the possibility of sharing with "other agencies" or indeed "other bodies". there is NO guarantee that this info will ot be shared with insurance companies to allow then to rip you off further...etc etc etc...

I told em NO...NO WAY....

there are 4 things about me the emergency first reponders need to know about me...non of which I regard as "sensitive"

1 I am  tablet and diet controlled diabetic
2 I am allergic to sulphonamides
3 WARNING TO EMERGENCY PERSONELL...this vehicle MAY be carrying firearms and ammunition in the secured locker in the rear. Please treat with caution and seek the assistance of a firearms officer.
4 next of kin ...wife phone XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. Daughter ..phone XXXXXXXXXXX
all of which info is contained in a small document which resides in my now redundant tax disc holder who's front cover reads. FAO EMERGENCY RESPONDERS in bright red on yellow background

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:The same principle applies to all.
You created the example of a man, I just continued that.
It matters not whether male or female, to go behind someones back to cheat is ethically wrong
If people refuse to leave a relationship, then they are at fault as they not for not doing so, which would be even worse if they are then cheating denying the chance to be with that person if they had left their relationship?
Are you now claiming fear cannot be overcome?

Next

Oh didge....oh dear oh dear oh dear.......

in your haste to prove how clever you are.............
you have just (in not so many words) said that women who stay in an abusive relationship deserve what they get
gawd elp you when nems sees that let alone eddie...

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

resort to nonsensical picture..game set and match to me then ?

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:

Oh didge....oh dear oh dear oh dear.......

in your haste to prove how clever you are.............
you have just (in not so many words) said that women who stay in an abusive relationship deserve what they get
gawd elp you when nems sees that let alone eddie...

Wrong, I am saying they have the means to get out, they choose not to. Where again this is on a view hey are having an affair, which is a double negative. The are having an affair in secret, yet claim they cnnot get of their relationship.

wrong...i gave you two choices... the only two choices available...

you chose the second....

ooops...
Moot
So not once did I claim they deserve what hey get, they have the means to do something of they are already having an affair, the point you miss
You are taking the view of someone not having an affair
Jesus wept tal about idiotic yet again

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



Wrong, I am saying they have the means to get out, they choose not to. Where again this is on a view hey are having an affair, which is a double negative. The are having an affair in secret, yet claim they cnnot get of their relationship.

wrong...i gave you two choices... the only two choices available...

you chose the second....

ooops...
Moot
So not once did I claim they deserve what hey get, they have the means to do something of they are already having an affair, the point you miss
You are taking the view of someone not having an affair
Jesus wept tal about idiotic yet again

Brasidas wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Yes we all need each other very much.
Again how would you have survived from birth without the help of others Veya. I need some help but not most members of society
How would you survive if ill to the point of incapacity without others help? I need some help but not most members of society, Immediate family could be sufficient
Do you think we should just leave people to starve to death, if they cannot feed themselves? Not about my opinion it is about the Social Agreement we have in place, we have agreed to create a safety net to minimise this, we didn't have to the USA hasn't
Should we allow people with physical disabilities to fend for themselves
Lets start with that?  Not about my opinion it is about the Social Agreement we have in place, we have agreed to create a safety net to minimise this, we didn't have to the USA hasn't

So how does that in any support spending money for NO GAIN      

So you need help
That means we all need help, thus any reason to not help others is based off a selfish reasoning (selfish reasoning is allowed/encouraged under our social agreement) and not of what we need ourselves we should do for others (umm not how Capitalism works      again WE are NOT communists the System you suggest where we all share for the good of everyone and do not seek Individual gain IS NOT the system we live under, Sorry Bra You lost the Cold War. Greedy Selfish Capitalists Won.. Actually part of the reason we have terrorists now.)
Thanks for making your own argument moot          What? I made the Commies win the Cold war? Nope sorry Bra the Capitalist pigs are still in Power        

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:

Oh didge....oh dear oh dear oh dear.......

in your haste to prove how clever you are.............
you have just (in not so many words) said that women who stay in an abusive relationship deserve what they get
gawd elp you when nems sees that let alone eddie...

Wrong, I am saying they have the means to get out, they choose not to. ergo any consequence of which is on their own heads...you cannot escape the hole you dug...you cannor claim one without the other... Where again this is on a view hey are having an affair, which is a double negative. They are having an affair in secret, yet claim they cannot get of their relationship.
Moot
So not once did I claim they deserve what they get, you poorly attempting to put words in my mouth, they have the means to do something as if they are already having an affair, the point you miss
You are taking the view of someone not having an affair
Jesus wept talk about idiotic yet again

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:

You think there are only two choices because you think two dimensionally, hence why your views was flawed.
A woman claiming to not be able to get out of something yet still having an affair and able to have one clearly is able to get out and do so. They thus have the ability to get out to do this, they thus have the ability to get out of the relationship altogether.


Whoops

Try thinking 3 dimensional, it may help you

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



Wrong, I am saying they have the means to get out, they choose not to. ergo any consequence of which is on their own heads...you cannot escape the hole you dug...you cannor claim one without the other... Where again this is on a view hey are having an affair, which is a double negative. They are having an affair in secret, yet claim they cannot get of their relationship.
Moot
So not once did I claim they deserve what they get, you poorly attempting to put words in my mouth, they have the means to do something as if they are already having an affair, the point you miss
You are taking the view of someone not having an affair
Jesus wept talk about idiotic yet again

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:




You think there are only two choices because you think two dimensionally, hence why your views was flawed.
A woman claiming to not be able to get out of something yet still having an affair and able to have one clearly is able to get out and do so. They thus have the ability to get out to do this, they thus have the ability to get out of the relationship altogether.


Whoops

Try thinking 3 dimensional, it may help you

oh I love the sound of pedals going backwards in the evening....