Are Tories welcome at Glastonbury

[mcshed]

1 hour ago, glastolover19 said:

I highly dispute the 5%, yes it maybe 5% that they know of. As far as I'm concerned both benefits/tax abuse are as bad as the other,it's still depriving the public purse. It don't matter if you Nick 5 sweets or 10 sweets it's still stealing

Either way it's stealing but surely the guy who already has loads of sweets stealing another 10 is way worse than the guy with no sweets stealing 5.

[glastolover19]

Just now, mcshed said:

Either way it's stealing but surely the guy who already has loads of sweets stealing another 10 is way worse than the guy with no sweets stealing 5.

No,whatever who you look at it it's still stealing,I'm not sure how you can condemn one person but condone another,the crime is still the same regardless of scale

[mcshed]

1 minute ago, glastolover19 said:

No,whatever who you look at it it's still stealing,I'm not sure how you can condemn one person but condone another,the crime is still the same regardless of scale

I'm not condoning the other I'm condemning to different degrees.

[glastolover19]

1 minute ago, mcshed said:

I'm not condoning the other I'm condemning to different degrees.

Ok I don't see how some people can excused more then others

[Woffy]

15 minutes ago, Apone said:

Then suggest you read, then re-read till you get it, you're wasting my time

I’m sensing that avoiding answering my polite question by ‘presuming’, putting words in my mouth and generally talking around the subject is making you angry. So I’ll leave it there. 

We just seem to have very different approaches to discourse. 

Best of luck. 

[mcshed]

1 minute ago, glastolover19 said:

Ok I don't see how some people can excused more then others

Ok Javert.

[glastolover19]

2 minutes ago, mcshed said:

Ok Javert.

I assume your referring to the les mib character,I'll admit it's a very long time since my wife dragged me to a production of that so don't really remember much so that's gone over my head.

It's fine if you want to live in a world where we are all held to different standards,I'd prefer to live where we are all treated the same(and that includes punished the same) perhaps we just have different views on what equality means

[mcshed]

2 minutes ago, glastolover19 said:

I assume your referring to the les mib character,I'll admit it's a very long time since my wife dragged me to a production of that so don't really remember much so that's gone over my head.

It's fine if you want to live in a world where we are all held to different standards,I'd prefer to live where we are all treated the same(and that includes punished the same) perhaps we just have different views on what equality means

I was indeed referring to the character from the Victor Hugo novel who dedicates his time to chasing down a fugitive guilty of stealing a loaf of bread.

 

Every case is different, that's what we have judges for but I don't think it's too controversial to say that both:

1. Stealing a larger amount is worse than stealing a small amount.

2. Stealing when you already have lots is worse than stealing to just get by.

[Rose-Colored Boy]

5 minutes ago, mcshed said:

I

2. Stealing when you already have lots is worse than stealing to just get by.

This. A society which judges a poor man robbing a rich man the same as it judges a rich man robbing a poor man is no society at all. Poor people trying to live ever so slightly comfortably is not comparable to millionaires trying to minimise their contributions to the pot which funds the NHS etc., that’s completely daft.

[glastolover19]

7 minutes ago, mcshed said:

I was indeed referring to the character from the Victor Hugo novel who dedicates his time to chasing down a fugitive guilty of stealing a loaf of bread.

 

Every case is different, that's what we have judges for but I don't think it's too controversial to say that both:

1. Stealing a larger amount is worse than stealing a small amount.

2. Stealing when you already have lots is worse than stealing to just get by.

Like I said it's been long time since I saw it and I've never read the book version.

You right I'm not judge and jury,however I think your find a fair amount of judges are inherently biased in a lot of cases so I don't put too much faith in them to do the right thing.

Stealing regardless is wrong doesn't matter the size of the theft,the only exception I make is someone stealing say some bread because they are literally starving (les mis nod there for ya) my argument has been about the people who play or purposely cheat the system and use benefits out of choice

[glastolover19]

8 minutes ago, Rose-Colored Boy said:

This. A society which judges a poor man robbing a rich man the same as it judges a rich man robbing a poor man is no society at all. Poor people trying to live ever so slightly comfortably is not comparable to millionaires trying to minimise their contributions to the pot which funds the NHS etc., that’s completely daft.

Ok so you wouldn't have a problem if someone robbed your house and nicked a tv just because you had 2 and they had none?

[Rose-Colored Boy]

6 minutes ago, glastolover19 said:

Ok so you wouldn't have a problem if someone robbed your house and nicked a tv just because you had 2 and they had none?

I would have a problem with it, but nowhere near as much of a problem as I would have if someone with twenty TVs did it.

[glastolover19]

2 minutes ago, Rose-Colored Boy said:

I would have a problem with it, but nowhere near as much of a problem as I would have if someone with twenty TVs did it.

I'd expect you'd want them punished the same though?

[Rose-Colored Boy]

7 minutes ago, glastolover19 said:

I'd expect you'd want them punished the same though?

Absolutely not, and I’m thankful that our judicial system would - at least in theory - take their different circumstances into account, even if the government of the day would rather make an example of the defenceless poor than dare upset their rich chums.

[Rumblestripe]

17 minutes ago, glastolover19 said:

my argument has been about the people who play or purposely cheat the system and use benefits out of choice

Ah this comfortable excuse for things like foodbanks and "universal credit", the fact that the loss to the Exchequer is miniscule compared to tax fraud and avoidance is neither here nor there. It is abhorrent that papers like the Daily Mail ("Hurrah for the Blackshirts") seek to divert attention from the rich defrauding the Exchequer by pointing at the few families and individuals abusing the benefit system is sickening. That someone who attends Glastonbury is so cold of heart as to think this is logical and/or righteous annoys me. I know they will probably simply sit on the hill above Pyramid and watch the stage without ever embracing Glastonbury and all its diversity and humanity.

Tories have no place at Glastonbury just as they have no place at The Durham Miners' Gala.

[mcshed]

32 minutes ago, glastolover19 said:

Stealing regardless is wrong doesn't matter the size of the theft,the only exception I make is someone stealing say some bread because they are literally starving (les mis nod there for ya) my argument has been about the people who play or purposely cheat the system and use benefits out of choice

I genuinely cannot fathom the moral absolutism that doesn't see a difference between stealing a little and a lot.

Those stealing benefits are still worse off than those evading tax, I do understand that this doesn't matter to everyone but surely you can see the distinction.

Either way I don't think we're getting anywhere with this conversation.

[glastolover19]

13 minutes ago, Rose-Colored Boy said:

Absolutely not, and I’m thankful that our judicial system would - at least in theory - take their different circumstances into account, even if the government of the day would rather make an example of the defenceless poor than dare upset their rich chums.

What you mean the courts and justice system that's as bent as most institutions? What ever way you want to look at it theft is theft and as I'd previously said it's excusable in some extreme circumstances. If you steal because you can't afford to eat then yeah sure I'd let them go,it's the people who willing take the piss and steal for greed wether it's a rich person or poor.

[glastolover19]

2 minutes ago, mcshed said:

I genuinely cannot fathom the moral absolutism that doesn't see a difference between stealing a little and a lot.

Those stealing benefits are still worse off than those evading tax, I do understand that this doesn't matter to everyone but surely you can see the distinction.

Either way I don't think we're getting anywhere with this conversation.

And I don't understand how anyone wants a fair and equal world yet we all get treated differently,surely we should all be treated the same and punished the same. Regardless of being rich or poor if you steal out of want rather then need then your just a thief

[glastolover19]

22 minutes ago, Rumblestripe said:

Ah this comfortable excuse for things like foodbanks and "universal credit", the fact that the loss to the Exchequer is miniscule compared to tax fraud and avoidance is neither here nor there. It is abhorrent that papers like the Daily Mail ("Hurrah for the Blackshirts") seek to divert attention from the rich defrauding the Exchequer by pointing at the few families and individuals abusing the benefit system is sickening. That someone who attends Glastonbury is so cold of heart as to think this is logical and/or righteous annoys me. I know they will probably simply sit on the hill above Pyramid and watch the stage without ever embracing Glastonbury and all its diversity and humanity.

Tories have no place at Glastonbury just as they have no place at The Durham Miners' Gala.

Are you talking explicitly about me here?

[mcshed]

13 minutes ago, glastolover19 said:

And I don't understand how anyone wants a fair and equal world yet we all get treated differently,surely we should all be treated the same and punished the same. Regardless of being rich or poor if you steal out of want rather then need then your just a thief

I think of want and need as being on a spectrum where the benefit cheat is nearer the need end than the tax evader rather than as two discrete things.

[Rose-Colored Boy]

23 minutes ago, glastolover19 said:

What you mean the courts and justice system that's as bent as most institutions? 

In certain respects, but they broadly like to adhere to the principle of making the punishment fit the crime. More than the political classes like to, anyway.

23 minutes ago, glastolover19 said:

s. If you steal because you can't afford to eat then yeah sure I'd let them go,it's the people who willing take the piss and steal for greed wether it's a rich person or poor.

And this, I’m sorry to say, goes back to the horrendously cruel myth perpetuated by certain rags that poor people should be happy just to survive and should never desire anything more to their life than said basic survival. I thought we’d already covered that in some detail but I’m happy to go through it again if you wish.

[glastolover19]

7 minutes ago, mcshed said:

I think of want and need as being on a spectrum where the benefit cheat is nearer the need end than the tax evader rather than as two discrete things.

It doesn't matter if nearer to need,if you don't need it but take it surely that's greed regardless

[mcshed]

Just now, glastolover19 said:

It doesn't matter if nearer to need,if you don't need it but take it surely that's greed regardless

Yes it is greed but less greed than if someone with more is doing it.

Again I think we're both clear on the other persons position by now and I don't think we're illuminating the topic in any novel way so I think I'll stop.

Have a good evening and enjoy your Glastonbury.

[glastolover19]

1 minute ago, Rose-Colored Boy said:

In certain respects, but they broadly like to adhere to the principle of making the punishment fit the crime. More than the political classes like to, anyway.

And this, I’m sorry to say, goes back to the horrendously cruel myth perpetuated by certain rags that poor people should be happy just to survive and should never desire anything more to their life than said basic survival. I thought we’d already covered that in some detail but I’m happy to go through it again if you wish.

The court system that's pretty much always favoured the rich,powerful,famous against the common person. Punishment that fits the crime is a nice idea but rarely imposed.

Sorry but as I said before why does someone who chooses not to work and contribute get more then people who do?

[glastolover19]

3 minutes ago, mcshed said:

Yes it is greed but less greed than if someone with more is doing it.

Again I think we're both clear on the other persons position by now and I don't think we're illuminating the topic in any novel way so I think I'll stop.

Have a good evening and enjoy your Glastonbury.

I will sir and I hope you do too and don't take anything I say personally,it's just a different pov. The fact is neither of us are right or wrong it's probably somewhere in the middle. As I have with anyone I have had debates with here I certainly will buy you a cider come June.