Really? Do you think that is what I am saying? If so then case in point of your inability to see any complexity or nuance. From a Christian point of view yes, things are either right or wrong.
But humanly we do see degrees in things, we think murder is worse than petty stealing. Both are "wrong" but almost no-one would argue that the legal consequence should be the same for both.
So, you may see surveillance as "wrong" and you may see terrorism as "wrong" but if the first wrong is less wrong than the second and mitigates the second then is that for the greater good?
I don't think that is a simple question with an obvious yes or no answer.
I would say yes, with an "if". And the "if" is "if innocent people can continue to get on with their daily lives without consequence". And generally, we can. There's CCTV everywhere but I go where I want, as do you. There's inevitably monitoring of online messages but I say what I want, as do you - as evidenced by the fact that you haven't has a knock at the door or been "disappeared" after all your posts on here. Could that change? Yes. Is it likely to...impossible to rule out but I personally think it unlikely.
According to this:
http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/...mber-Rudd-news
"Ms Rudd said: 'I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online including jihadi websites,
far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions face the full force of the law.'"
Most of that I wouldn't have a problem with. Far-right propaganda needs to be defined, I imagine they are talking about neo-Nazi stuff and white supremacy.
There is a danger here of course but restricting everything and restricting nothing are not the only two options here.
Same. Logic and reason are not your fortes.
Your replies are generally vague, you constantly change the subject and frequently hint at knowing better than the rest of us poor saps without ever backing that up with anything of substance.
Low energy. Sad.