Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

General Election 2015 - chat, predictions, results and post election discussion

As I said, they're not *sufficient" protection - but without CCTV can we be certain that the level of assaults wouldn't be higher still??

CCTV empowers the employer, the land owner and the state (i.e. those who own and control the technology); they do the looking, they keep the records and they are known to do so by the rest of us.

What CCTV also does is excuse those same employers, land owners and state bodies from engaging with other protective measures; after all they are doing something valuable already.

Indeed all those employers, landowners and state officials could call on you in their defence; 'look' they could say 'even sensible Labour Party people like articul8 can see what a good job we're doing!'

Cheers - Louis MacNeice
 
Freedom to abuse animals?
Oh come on, that's just pathetic.

Indeed all those employers, landowners and state officials could call on you in their defence; 'look' they could say 'even sensible Labour Party people like articul8 can see what a good job we're doing!'
Like they can call on him and Ed to defend zero hour contracts.

Sad thing is that in three-four years time I can easily see a8 defending Labour's attacks on those on benefits.
 
What CCTV also does is excuse those same employers, land owners and state bodies from engaging with other protective measures; after all they are doing something valuable already.
I don't see how this follows. I'm clear that the biggest root cause of animal abuse in food production is systematic, a result of industrial scale intensive farming. That needs tackling as a priority. But if CCTV can offer a measure of transparency and accountability - so that producers and workers aren't protected from commiting needless acts of suffering behind the walled gates of the unit, this seems to be a good thing.
 
It's entirely consistent politician logic.

Animals are being abused.

This is a measure aimed at reducing animal abuse.

Therefore, if you oppose this measure, you are in favour of animals being abused.
that's nothing like what he said. but wtf, lets all play attack the point because of who made it yet again, it's the best thing about the whole board!
 
Oh come on, that's just pathetic.

Like they can call on him and Ed to defend zero hour contracts.

Sad thing is that in three-four years time I can easily see a8 defending Labour's attacks on those on benefits.
Now that's pathetic - I am totally opposed to exploitation of workers on zero hours contracts, and have actively campaigned against them. To sugget I "defend" them is a downright lie
 
that's nothing like what he said. but wtf, lets all play attack the point because of who made it yet again, it's the best thing about the whole board!
Yes it is. I oppose a measure because it impinges on freedom, and he says that this implies that I support freedom to abuse animals. The logic does not follow.
 
watchful-eyes.jpg




^^^this is what happens when you employ fuck haired advertising creatives who lack even a basic reading background and grasp of nuance
 
Freedom. Infinite freedom. Except to do something I don't agree with....
And again. Unless I support your measure, I'm supporting some idea of infinite freedom. Extending spy cameras is the only way to address the issue. Either you spy or people can do whatever they want.
 
Hmm - if you accept that "freedom" is not an absolute good, then it follows there are certain instances in which the common good depends on limiting the freedom of the individual, no? Then the question is who has the authority to introduce and police those limits...?
 
Yes it is. I oppose a measure because it impinges on freedom, and he says that this implies that I support freedom to abuse animals. The logic does not follow.
He did no such thing. he pointed out that 'freedom' encompasses all sorts of things that are, generally, unsupported, thus pointing out the central contradiction of your post.

And so, yet another thread becomes (in essence) all about a8 being a shit, because a8 is in the labour party. A complete and utter waste of time, and liable to make people, except the few partaking, to go 'sod this'
 
And so, yet another thread becomes (in essence) all about a8 being a shit, because a8 is in the labour party. A complete and utter waste of time, and liable to make people, except the few partaking, to go 'sod this'

Apologies I did use his party affiliation as a chance to have a cheap shot.

However, my main point is that CCTV is a potentially dangerous, necessarily partial and individualising solution (it makes us be our own police) to problems that are socially produced and to which we should be looking for similarly social answers.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice
 
Apologies I did use his party affiliation as a chance to have a cheap shot.

However, my main point is that CCTV is a potentially dangerous, necessarily partial and individualising solution (it makes us be our own police) to problems that are socially produced and to which we should be looking for similarly social answers.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice
This is well put. I'll desist as well. fwiw I don't have a go at a8 because he's in the Labour Party, but because I find his ideas mostly horrifying.
 
Back
Top Bottom