Well although trying to start a discussion is sometimes a risky proposition I don't think I really anticipated the smug, and dismisive tone of the replies.
"Each and every one of us is an individual with the inate right to decide for ourselves"
"But that isnt true is it?" - Why not? What comes or doesn't as a result of a decision does not negate the fact that a decision can be made.
"I understand the hyperbole" - where exactly is my obvious and intentional exaggeration?
"of people sat behind a computer screen "dissing the man" "- no need to insult me /sneer at me or whatever it is you are trying to do.
"But if you think you have the inate right to decide for yourself, I believe with respect that is wrong. What if I decide that I think Fox Hunting is good and will carry on, or I should terrorise ethnic minorities or force my political beliefs right or left on everyone else. After all its my inate right to decide for myself?" - Don't be ridiculous I was merely putting forward the idea of joining a march ffs.
"Oh I know people will say I will therefore reap the consequences, but that really means I had no inate choice in the first place; its hardly a choice to say I could go down that corridor, but I will be shot is it?" - Yes it is still a choice even though the consequences may be extreme.
"I get fed up with the Anonymous videos. In the end they are just (like this one), like a script that could have been read by Dwayne Johnson before he kicks the baddies ass. In the end they are people undemocratically affecting people who have never had a vote on them, their actions or what their motives (unclear as they are) are. Hell I can go and shout at Cameron, he puts himself up for a vote and I can see his face, Anonymous are.....anonymous" - This is more like it and yes I think I could probably find some common ground with you here. I have reservations and doubts however at the same time many of the actions and policies instigated by democratically elected authorities could quite easily also be described as "undemocratically affecting people", I don't recall voting for a certain recent war or massive surveillance of private correspondence or bailing out banks for example. But I actually said that I didn't propose it as an answer just the start of looking for one. So just because a fully formed answer doesn't exist does that mean we shouldn't look? I'm sure the first Suffragettes or the first Trade Unionists would agree with that.
"This has come about because everyone always wants change." - No they don't I could walk you down my road and show you numerous people who don't want change or just don't give a toss. I would suggest that this has come about because some people want change but have no means of expressing that desire or having someone represent a will to change and that builds into a frustration that needs to come out somehow.
"Every year Ive been on this earth everyone wants change. Its human nature, because life isnt perfect, we want different. When we get that, we want to change it again, such is the human trait. That is why politicians of all wings and colours use the word so damn much." - So why should that stop change from being sought? I'm sure the persecuted around the world really don't want change.
"Real change is difficult and requires tackling the systems we have now - using the systems we have now, which requires effort. Personally Im cynical enough to believe that people who think action is hacking into computers and ranting on twitter have neither the bottle nor the work ethic to do it." - Not just cynical somewhat superior too. Using the systems we have now? You sure? I worked in the Houses of Parliament (including spells in the Private Offices of 2 Cabinet Ministers) and if you really believe that it is possible to change anything via their own systems then I'm sorry but you're not just cynical, you're deluded.
"People who believe getting a few thousand signatures on an online petition somehow constitutes a) democracy and b) what the majority (ie 64 million) really think." - Who exactly is saying they are constituting what everyone else really thinks as opposed to expressing their own position?
"Apologies for the rant, but Im ill today and Im rarely ill!" - Apology accepted this time round but don't be so damn insulting next time someone just tries to start a conversation huh? Hope you're feeling better today
Moving on....
"firstly i would like to say that that march will be interesting to watch as didn't they recently bring in a law that prohibits faces being covered during any kind of march?" - Yeah but what if you used make up and therefore weren't covering your face?
"if you are going to use the "Each and every one of us is an individual with the inate right to decide for ourselves" phrase you should add "within the constraints of the law"" - Point taken, this would have been better phrasing but I was only talking about whether or not to join a march, nothing else.
"I DON'T KNOW so don't shout at me, i'm only trying to think on both sides." - I'm not shouting at anyone!!!! Thinking both sides seems a rational way of trying to move forward doesn't it?
"As big a fan of the Levellers as I am I do get sick of hearing (mainly Mark) say that we should live in an anarchistic society where we all decide for ourselves" - Not what I was proposing, as I said up there I was merely proposing that it might be a start in looking for an answer, I certainly wasn't being arrogant enough to say I had the answer, neither am I naive enough to think that where Anonymous are now is that answer.
"this is why alot of demonstrations are spoiled by people who turn up just so they can try and clobber the police or cause damage (my father calls them "professional activists" who probably have no clue what the demonstration is about)" - And these morons should stop the rest of us demonstrating because?
"On the Anon level you also have Alex Jones, a man who argues that there is an elite who control governments who are slowly sucking the wealth out of the 99% inorder to rule the world under the New World Order. You can see where the ideas come from, but you also realise that his website is full of advertising, he sells books, dvd etc and seems to be getting quite wealthy himself. Hell, even David Icke makes sense on some levels," - Granted, but those 2 are just a minute part of the 99% and for myself I work, take a wage, pay my taxes and am therefore "part of the system" so does that mean I am a moral hypocrite for wanting to express a desire for change?
"Back to Anonymous - i do hope they are trying to bring good change, but surley they should form a political party & get democratically elected" - Well maybe but where would the commercial and vested interest backing come from? Without it there would be no chance of breaking through.
"I think what i'm trying to say is we small humans will never know the full truth of what happens in this world, not even if we end up being in the middle of it." - True. Our own personal truth is really all any of us have to go on and we can only do with it what we feel to be right.
Next response....
"Im certainly not saying its perfect and it constantly needs questioning, but I agree with you, if we think Anonymous, Alex Jones or David Icke are the answer then we must be smoking something." - You really are quite sanctamonious aren't you? I ACTUALLY SAID I DON'T PROPOSE IT AS AN ANSWER BUT A START FOR LOOKING FOR ONE. Also I never mentioned Alex Jones or David Icke. If you gonna' rip the piss then at least have the ******* courtesy of reading what I actually said.
