4 ms·

Poor MPs. Being power hungry must really suck in the age of social media :(

benj111 2y ago
Really? You can disagree with the position, whilst accepting that MPs have been murdered, and MPs do get threatened online. What specific level of power hunger makes a threat to life acceptable? Further, I wasn't in favour of these proposals, but if you have people on HN of all places thinking its acceptable to threaten people, maybe we do need this law.
- bilvar 2y ago
  Threatening people online was already illegal.
  - benj111 2y ago
    Ok, lets replace this with murder. MPs are getting murdered, so they introduce a new law to prevent murder. Is the parents comment acceptable?
    - bilvar 2y ago
      Murder is already illegal, and threatening to murder someone is already illegal. Any further legislation, the burden of proof is on them not on me or the parent poster. Otherwise one day they might claim that me taking a shit will lead to their murder and have my toilets removed.
      - benj111 2y ago
        Im not saying the burden of proof is on you. I'm not saying murder is legal. I'm saying that making sarcastic comments suggesting that MPs deserve to be murdered or threatened isn't acceptable. Its a completely separate issue from the law theyve introduced, which as I said, I'm not in favour of, and I agree they need to make the case before they remove your toilets, I've already made such a comment elsewhere in this thread.
- opwieurposiu 2y ago
  Every law that the MPs create is itself a threat against the people. A prescriptive law can only be described as "Do what I say, or I will hurt you." Agents of the state create laws, and then take your money and pay that money to men with guns to come after you if you fail to comply. Law === Threat
  - benj111 2y ago
    "If you don't do X, I won't do Y" That is a threat in the broadest sense. the more useful comparisons are law != violence || threat of violence threat != violence unless youre just equivocating the 2 meanings of threat to construct an argument? So as law isn't equivalent to violence, why is it acceptable to bring violence into it?

Really? You can disagree with the position, whilst accepting that MPs have been murdered, and MPs do get threatened online. What specific level of power hunger makes a threat to life acceptable? Further, I wasn't in favour of these proposals, but if you have people on HN of all places thinking its acceptable to threaten people, maybe we do need this law.

bilvar 2y ago
Threatening people online was already illegal.
- benj111 2y ago
  Ok, lets replace this with murder. MPs are getting murdered, so they introduce a new law to prevent murder. Is the parents comment acceptable?
  - bilvar 2y ago
    Murder is already illegal, and threatening to murder someone is already illegal. Any further legislation, the burden of proof is on them not on me or the parent poster. Otherwise one day they might claim that me taking a shit will lead to their murder and have my toilets removed.
    - benj111 2y ago
      Im not saying the burden of proof is on you. I'm not saying murder is legal. I'm saying that making sarcastic comments suggesting that MPs deserve to be murdered or threatened isn't acceptable. Its a completely separate issue from the law theyve introduced, which as I said, I'm not in favour of, and I agree they need to make the case before they remove your toilets, I've already made such a comment elsewhere in this thread.
opwieurposiu 2y ago
Every law that the MPs create is itself a threat against the people. A prescriptive law can only be described as "Do what I say, or I will hurt you." Agents of the state create laws, and then take your money and pay that money to men with guns to come after you if you fail to comply. Law === Threat
- benj111 2y ago
  "If you don't do X, I won't do Y" That is a threat in the broadest sense. the more useful comparisons are law != violence || threat of violence threat != violence unless youre just equivocating the 2 meanings of threat to construct an argument? So as law isn't equivalent to violence, why is it acceptable to bring violence into it?