Glastonbury alcohol email?

[mrtourette]

and of course everything has to be black and white. We have to make a decision between soviet communism and facism?

The fact that your talking about exact opposites shows you're thinking is too simplistic.

Edited June 14, 2013 by mrtourette

[eFestivals]

The 'with us or against us' stance is quite a popular one here. Any sign of the slightest understanding of/sympathy for anything 'corporate' means you're a racist sexist selfish Tory preying on the weak and only interested in personal gain, and the slightest hint of distaste of the capitalist world we live in means you're a backward chinstroking hippy living in a 70's socialist bubble. The grey areas don't exist.

that's really not true (tho I've yet to see any reasonable corporate idea ever having been posted here ).

The likes of Teddington scream "COMMUNIST" or "NORTH KOREA" at any idea which suggests just the tiniest shift leftwards in any policy.

Meanwhile, I don't recall anyone screaming "FASCIST" at him in that "Right Field" topic - and that was despite him showing extremely strong fascist tendencies.

Edited June 14, 2013 by eFestivals

[siblin]

I suppose i should just come out and admit it then. I love a starbucks caramel machiatto every now and again..

I just cant keep my true political leanings locked up any more!

Edited June 14, 2013 by siblin

[siblin]

hmm, 5 minutes has passed and no abuse.. good-o!

[mrtourette]

that's really not true (tho I've yet to see any reasonable corporate idea ever having been posted here ).

The likes of Teddington scream "COMMUNIST" or "NORTH KOREA" at any idea which suggests just the tiniest shift leftwards in any policy.

Meanwhile, I don't recall anyone screaming "FASCIST" at him in that "Right Field" topic - and that was despite him showing extremely strong fascist tendencies.

Edited June 14, 2013 by mrtourette

[jeffie]

Go on, let's let this one go now.........

[eFestivals]

It's done by both 'sides' in most arguments (it's not necessairly you or Ted), although I suppose it's something that happens with internet arguments. No accountability means it's easy to make lazy generalisations.

it does get done by both sides, but people screaming 'fascist' at any suggestion that's different from the direction the left would like to go in is far lesser than the likes of Teddington screaming communist or North Korea from the opposite side.

I've noticed that trend in other places too (including the Guardian's reader comments), and it's not something that used to happen in years gone by. I can only presume that we now moved so far from the left that in some people's eyes anything vaguely left-ish has to equate to the sort of society they have in North Korea.

It shows how far we've fallen as a society. There was a much greater political understanding in the population at large in the polarised cold war times. It wasn't only bad things that ended when the cold war did.

[Teddington]

Surely illegal drugs are only supplied by criminals.

[Teddington]

No, the exact opposite of "no rules" is "rules" you tunnel-visioned fool.

And as for you disagreeing, care to tell me why there's a global financial crisis? Is that result of "rules" or of "no rules"?

[eFestivals]

Technically perhaps.

I was trying to reflect the fact that *some* cannabis seeds could possibly have been passed down from generation to generation. Low I know, hence the 99.9% quoted.

Still it went above the usual suspects heads...........

because you're talking no less bollocks than every other post.

A seed is not a drug. Changing the seed into a drug is a crime in itself.

|You'll have to come up with a better reason for why you're posting constant bollocks.

Edited June 14, 2013 by eFestivals

[Teddington]

that's really not true (tho I've yet to see any reasonable corporate idea ever having been posted here ).

The likes of Teddington scream "COMMUNIST" or "NORTH KOREA" at any idea which suggests just the tiniest shift leftwards in any policy.

Meanwhile, I don't recall anyone screaming "FASCIST" at him in that "Right Field" topic - and that was despite him showing extremely strong fascist tendencies.

[eFestivals]

You are wrong as usual.

The opposite of Libertarianism is Authoritarianism.

Even if I go with your warped ideas, it still doesn't by-default equate to totalitarianism. It's possible to be authoritarian but only in some areas.

You're authoritarian in your view towards private property protections in law. Does that make your ideas identical to North Korea?

As i've already pointed out and have pointed out again in the line above, the libertarian idea is a logical impossibility anyway - so it's rather pointless trying to define other ideas from a starting bad idea. It's a massive fail.

Edited June 14, 2013 by eFestivals

[iwalker]

It's fine. People can cope.

[eFestivals]

See my above post for further evidence of your stupidity.

see my post above for your own evidence of your own constant stupidity.

[eFestivals]

"The problems of this country will not be cured by libertarianism butthe exact opposite."

Ergo you are advocating Authoritarianism as your solution.

Your words, not mine.

The only words using 'authoritarian' there are your words. Your words, your wrong idea.

If the existence of any rule at all to limit any activity is to be called only 'authoritarian' then you are no less of an authoritarian by your demand of property laws and murder laws (both of which you've advocated).

So all you've proven is that you're a tit.

[Teddington]

Even if I go with your warped ideas, it still doesn't by-default equate to totalitarianism. It's possible to be authoritarian but only in some areas.

You're authoritarian in your view towards private property protections in law. Does that make your ideas identical to North Korea?

As i've already pointed out and have pointed out again in the line above, the libertarian idea is a logical impossibility anyway - so it's rather pointless trying to define other ideas from a starting bad idea. It's a massive fail.

[Teddington]

The only words using 'authoritarian' there are your words. Your words, your wrong idea.

If the existence of any rule at all to limit any activity is to be called only 'authoritarian' then you are no less of an authoritarian by your demand of property laws and murder laws (both of which you've advocated).

So all you've proven is that you're a tit.

[russycarps]

I respectively beg to differ.

However my wider point is that you do need rules where people might get hurt without making an informed decision,

[mrtourette]

it does get done by both sides, but people screaming 'fascist' at any suggestion that's different from the direction the left would like to go in is far lesser than the likes of Teddington screaming communist or North Korea from the opposite side.

I've noticed that trend in other places too (including the Guardian's reader comments), and it's not something that used to happen in years gone by. I can only presume that we now moved so far from the left that in some people's eyes anything vaguely left-ish has to equate to the sort of society they have in North Korea.

It shows how far we've fallen as a society. There was a much greater political understanding in the population at large in the polarised cold war times. It wasn't only bad things that ended when the cold war did.

[iwalker]

Problem is with the drug industry is it doesn't help itself at times. When they decriminalised Cannabis you couldn't move in Brixton for people trying to sell you 'weed' (well they claim it was, it isn't my thing so I never tried it).

Ditto, nobody really cared about Magic Mushrooms when people were tripping out at festivals but when they started selling them in Oxford Street, the authorites took notice.

I personally think the legal status of drugs needs a massive debate (with an open mind from both sides of the argument) but don't wave it in the face of Joe Public.

[eFestivals]

Definition:

Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others.

As I keep saying: it's a logical impossibility.

Because the way you wish to live your life does not respect the equal rights of others. It only respects equal rights within the rights *YOU* define.

Does the non-libertarian have an equal right to define no-private-property in the same way as you expect the right to define private-property? No he doesn't. Doies he have an equal right to define a right to murder in the same way as you demand a right to define no murder? No he doesn't.

It's only a set of "rights" after you've already defined what a person's rights are. And in your view, those rights are the rights to exploit others for your own benefit and not theirs - which is giving you a right to profit that you deny them; and not everyone can profit (that's another logical impossibility).

The idea is a logical impossibility. If you're not able to see that, you have greater issues of the mind than purely political ones.

Libertarians defend each person's right to life, liberty, and property-rights that people have naturally, before governments are created.

Really? Someone better tell that to the cat that's just bumped off a bird in my back garden.

In the libertarian view, all human relationships should be voluntary; the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves used force-actions like murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and fraud. It is the antonym to authoritarianism.

so you don't think there's any force in the face of starvation then?

You really are ridiculous.

[iwalker]

People try and continue the Libertarian - Authoritarian argument along old fashioned left-right lines and it is something of a dated line of debate.

I don't agree with David Davis (a definate right winger) on most things but his views on Civil Liberties are well worth listening to while New Labour became very authoritarian.

This explains quite well:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

[eFestivals]

I used authoritarian as you proposed the EXACT OPPOSITE of Libertarianism is what is required for this country.

I've already proven that what you call 'libertarianism' is no different to what you call 'authoritarian' because both have rules andf that makes them not libertarian. So shouting the EXACT OPPOSITE at me again just proves you the fool.

Back in the real world, 'libertartian' gets to mean "minimal rules" (but still a set of rules, and a set of rules to the benefit of some and not all sand so failing the 'equal' test).

So the exact opposite of "minimal rules" is "not minimal rules".

And guess what? "Not minimal rules" doesn't mean the same as "rules for everything".

If you had two brain cells to rub together this would be going a bit better for you.

Read the definition above to s just how weak your argument is.

Think about the definition above to see just how weak your argument is.

[russycarps]

Yeah sure, I do agree although although screaming 'FASCIST' isn't the only way. It doesn't take long for the snide 'no wonder the festival's going the way it is with all these Tory attitudes' or ' there's a worrying trend for racist comments creeping here' to start regarding anyone who doesn't espouse the correct opinions as determined by the Galstonbury ethos code of conduct. And while some (like russy) throw accusations of racism or facism around mostly for trolling purposes there is a case that any argument or view is taken and run with to the extreme and then insults are applied. There's always a lot of misquoting, presumptions, words being put in mouths by people eager to prove a point. Something like this is very common:

Person A: Society should look after people but not everyone deserves it.

Person B: So you're saying that it's OK to have an imbalance in society where the rich get rich and the poor get poorer?

To me to get from the first point to the second and then accuse the person of thinking like that is ridiculous. But like I said everyone does this, most my examples come from the 'right-wing' side of the argument because those are accusations that get thrown at me but both sides do it.

As for the state of society, I would probably have to agree that it certainly isn't cool to be a leftie and that an understanding of what left-wing or socialist is nowadays is poor, probably because socialism doesn't put iPads in people's hands or pay for fancy holidays abroad.

However a convenient unwillingness to accept some capitalist understanding/sympathy is possible while retaining socialist values is also displayed here (as well as capitalist being just as much of a dirty word and insult as you are concerned that socialst has become) and probably on every internet forum, which leads to the same blanket dismissal of ideas and views should they show but a smidgen of being 'for' the other side to happen.

[mrtourette]

actually, I've never called anyone a fascist, and the only people I've called a racist are those odious turds who were throwing around the word "pikey" (were you one of them? I forget)