Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

You don't think him telling women that they shouldn't be able to have an abortion is sexist? Ok then. 

No I don't, how is it sexist?

I don't think he right but it's not sexist.

[Nick]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

Shouldn't tolerate him? Do we execute everyone who holds a traditional religious view?

 

I'm an atheist but given the choice I'll side with that lot rather than this new illiberal mob seeking to silence and expel from public life anyone who disagrees with them. 

 

Matt  how is it that you always seem to stick up for people who hold views that many find abhorrent?

 

 

[Bobby Hundreds]

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

No I don't, how is it sexist?

I don't think he right but it's not sexist.

It's prejudice against women. He seems to think he has some moral authority over women's decisions, it's wholly sexist, look at his views on childcare. The man needs catapulting into the sea. 

[Strokes]

Just now, Bobby Hundreds said:

It's prejudice against women. He seems to think he has some moral authority over women's decisions, it's wholly sexist, look at his views on childcare. The man needs catapulting into the sea. 

What's prejudice about it? he is saying he thinks the baby has a right to live. Right or wrong it's not an attack on women, he can hardly hold the same views for men.

Its not sexist, he might be but this view isn't.

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

It's prejudice against women. He seems to think he has some moral authority over women's decisions, it's wholly sexist, look at his views on childcare. The man needs catapulting into the sea. 

Do his views change then if a man wants an abortion (that can happen can't it lol) or a father wants more free childcare? 

 

Of course they don't, it's just yet again people trying to shut down another opinion by throwing "ists" and "isms" at those who have them.

[Finnegan]

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

What's prejudice about it? he is saying he thinks the baby has a right to live. Right or wrong it's not an attack on women, he can hardly hold the same views for men.

Its not sexist, he might be but this view isn't.

 

Splitting hairs because whether it's sexist or not it's still a shit archaic view and religion should have no place in setting law. 

 

But I do agree, if he believes that every embryo is a soul and that only God has the right to terminate it and that that is his only reason for being against abortion then it isn't particularly a sexist view, just a silly superstitious one. 

[Guest MattP]

The BBC Daily Politics is today being presented by the editor of the Guardian

[Finnegan]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

Of course they don't, it's just yet again people trying to shut down another opinion by throwing "ists" and "isms" at those who have them.

 

I wish foxes talk had a 1800x900 **** off giant eye roll emoji sometimes. 

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Finnegan said:

I wish foxes talk had a 1800x900 **** off giant eye roll emoji sometimes. 

Me too Finners, me too.

[Strokes]

17 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

Splitting hairs because whether it's sexist or not it's still a shit archaic view and religion should have no place in setting law. 

 

But I do agree, if he believes that every embryo is a soul and that only God has the right to terminate it and that that is his only reason for being against abortion then it isn't particularly a sexist view, just a silly superstitious one. 

I admit it is splitting hairs but just one that needed splitting  

[Nick]

Good article on JRM:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jacob-rees-mogg-piers-morgan-good-morning-britain-interview-rape-abortion-same-sex-marriage-gay-a7932006.html

 

 

[Guest MattP]

12 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Good article on JRM:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jacob-rees-mogg-piers-morgan-good-morning-britain-interview-rape-abortion-same-sex-marriage-gay-a7932006.html

"Social media went wild. “The ugly face of modern conservatism has been exposed,” said one angry tweeter, having apparently been under the previous impression that Rees-Mogg played a prominent role in LGBT rights demonstrations and held the position of honorary speaker at the anti-Trump Women’s March"

 

That has to be made up, no way in a million years could you know anything about JRM and be under those assumptions. Do we now have large segments of people who get their news from reading social media rather than actually reading newspapers and watching the news?

 

"Look at Jacob's sixth child, Sixtis Benedict Pope John Paul Mary Puis Rees Mogg, legend!" 

 

*Turns on ITV*

 

"Oh my God, have you heard this? Jacob Rees Mogg is a traditional Catholic, abhorrent!"

 

How do these people get through life?

Edited 8 September 2017 by MattP

[Nick]

Just now, MattP said:

"Social media went wild. “The ugly face of modern conservatism has been exposed,” said one angry tweeter, having apparently been under the previous impression that Rees-Mogg played a prominent role in LGBT rights demonstrations and held the position of honorary speaker at the anti-Trump Women’s March"

 

That has to be made up, no way in a million years could you know anything about JRM and be under those assumptions. Do we now have large segments of people who get their news from reading social media rather than actually reading newspapers and watching the news?

 

"Look at Jacob's sixth child, Sixtis Benedict Pope John Paul Mary Puis Rees Mogg, legend!" 

 

*Turns on ITV*

 

"Oh my God, have you heard this? Jacob Rees Mogg is a traditional Catholic, abhorrent!"

 

How do these people get through life?

 And they are the bits you picked out - some random tweeters! They are the same bits the article ridicules as well.

 

Have you not surely got a comment on JRM and the views he holds, you being a Tory voter an all that?

[Guest]

Tbh i think wrm should absolutely have the right to believe what he believes and you express that belief. I agree with mattp (!) on the intolerance of those supposedly seeking tolerance.

 

Ranges of opinion, as with many mathematical models, tend to resemble bell curves. The majority will have views in the centre - probably incorporating elements from both the left and right. The outliers are important though and can actually help to  bring about a more accuratw result through their inclusion. This has been shown in mathematics and i believe is also true when it comes to political or other opinion. 

 

My main concern is that wrm holds his opinions because of religion. Its like me believing in brexit because santa told me to. If he wants to hold those opinions then id rather it was because he'd arrived at them on his own.

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Swan Lesta said:

 And they are the bits you picked out - some random tweeters! They are the same bits the article ridicules as well.

 

Have you not surely got a comment on JRM and the views he holds, you being a Tory voter an all that?

Yeah I did it on the last page, not views I agree with.

[Guest MattP]

Getting back to proper politics that actually do have serious repercussions the second reading should pass comfortably on the EU withdrawal bill but it's clearly going to need some serious amendments for the final one.

 

I just wish parliament had taken the same interest and put so much scrutiny into these powers when they were being given away as they are now they are being taken back, they were so happy to wave through EU law and treaties like Lisbon and they now suddenly find a conscience over this bill.

 

Maybe if they had done so they wouldn't now be facing this issue.

Edited 8 September 2017 by MattP

[Nick]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

Tbh i think wrm should absolutely have the right to believe what he believes and you express that belief. I agree with mattp (!) on the intolerance of those supposedly seeking tolerance.

 

Ranges of opinion, as with many mathematical models, tend to resemble bell curves. The majority will have views in the centre - probably incorporating elements from both the left and right. The outliers are important though and can actually help to  bring about a more accuratw result through their inclusion. This has been shown in mathematics and i believe is also true when it comes to political or other opinion. 

 

My main concern is that wrm holds his opinions because of religion. Its like me believing in brexit because santa told me to. If he wants to hold those opinions then id rather it was because he'd arrived at them on his own.

Firstly, Santa would never have voted for Brexit.

 

And yeah, he's free to think and believe what he wants but he's just committed political suicide because he's just alienated all women who don't follow the word of an imaginary friend which tells them they must endure the life changing fallout of whatever sexual horror they are subjected to without their consent.

 

Personally, I think that as an MP and a Tory party member, he is a representative of both the people that voted him in and his party, which is going to cause him some real problems going forward - and rightly so. He's a dinosaur - there's nothing cuddly, quaint and quintessentially British about him - he's just a man who holds abhorrent views and that for me goes for all people from any culture religion or background who's belief systems contravene basic human rights.

 

It's the Tory party that need to demonstrate here that they don't support him or his values and get rid of him. And if they don't it tells you pretty much everything you need to know about the Conservatives and the people that they are happy to represent them.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

11 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Firstly, Santa would never have voted for Brexit.

 

And yeah, he's free to think and believe what he wants but he's just committed political suicide because he's just alienated all women who don't follow the word of an imaginary friend which tells them they must endure the life changing fallout of whatever sexual horror they are subjected to without their consent.

 

Personally, I think that as an MP and a Tory party member, he is a representative of both the people that voted him in and his party, which is going to cause him some real problems going forward - and rightly so. He's a dinosaur - there's nothing cuddly, quaint and quintessentially British about him - he's just a man who holds abhorrent views and that for me goes for all people from any culture religion or background who's belief systems contravene basic human rights.

 

It's the Tory party that need to demonstrate here that they don't support him or his values and get rid of him. And if they don't it tells you pretty much everything you need to know about the Conservatives and the people that they are happy to represent them.

 

In that case then does the fact that Naz Shah expresses her abhorrent views openly without any recourse in the Labour party, tell you everything that we need to know about Labour, the unions, momentum and the people they are happy to represent them??

Edited 8 September 2017 by Foxin_mad

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

What's prejudice about it? he is saying he thinks the baby has a right to live. Right or wrong it's not an attack on women, he can hardly hold the same views for men.

Its not sexist, he might be but this view isn't.

His viewpoint on this matter involves denying only women a fundamental right (that of bodily autonomy) in a way not extended to other similar situations, viz. compromising bodily autonomy in order to preserve the life of another...so the argument could be made that this is grounded in sexism and classical asserting authority over the decisions of women as many of the Abrahamic religions have practised and continue to do so.

 

Though that being said, like Finn said it could just be that he believes in predestination as asserted by a cosmic entity, in which case he's a bit daft but not sexist.

 

The key question, however, is one that Matt mentioned a page ago - whether or not if he had the power he would seek to legislate his views.

[Nick]

3 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

 

In that case then does the fact that Naz Shah expresses her abhorrent views openly without any recourse in the Labour party, tell you everything that we need to know about Labour, the unions, momentum and the people they are happy to represent them??

Sorry, I'm a bit lost - what does Naz Shah believe which contravenes basic human rights?

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

It's the Tory party that need to demonstrate here that they don't support him or his values and get rid of him. And if they don't it tells you pretty much everything you need to know about the Conservatives and the people that they are happy to represent them.

Wow.

 

If the Conservative party ever expelled someone for holding a religious belief I would never vote for them again. This illiberal tyranny of trying to hound anyone who has a different opinion from what is considered the norm is already looking just as oppressive as the intolerance we have fought against before. 

 

The hypocrisy is astounding, we've had Labour MP's saying all Jews should be deported to the USA, we've had Ken Livingstone saying Hitler is a Zionist, we've had Labour councillors turn a blind eye to horrific stuff and I don't think I've ever seen you even call for action against a single one of them, let alone being sacked, you also stood up for the dismissal of Sarah Champion.

 

But Jacob Rees-Mogg has to go because he holds religious views he says he would never impose on anyone, even for you Nick this is pretty insane stuff. You are a seriously dangerous man and I'm glad you aren't in a position of power where you could use it.

[Strokes]

12 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

His viewpoint on this matter involves denying only women a fundamental right (that of bodily autonomy) in a way not extended to other similar situations, viz. compromising bodily autonomy in order to preserve the life of another...so the argument could be made that this is grounded in sexism and classical asserting authority over the decisions of women as many of the Abrahamic religions have practised and continue to do so.

 

Though that being said, like Finn said it could just be that he believes in predestination as asserted by a cosmic entity, in which case he's a bit daft but not sexist.

 

The key question, however, is one that Matt mentioned a page ago - whether or not if he had the power he would seek to legislate his views.

Can you explain what are the other similar situations to abortion? Your second point is where I think he is but even your first point I have no understanding of how it's sexist.

[Nick]

Just now, MattP said:

Wow.

 

If the Conservative party ever expelled someone for holding a religious belief I would never vote for them again. This illiberal tyranny of trying to hound anyone who has a different opinion from what is considered the norm is already looking just as oppressive as the intolerance we have fought against before. 

 

The hypocrisy is astounding, we've had Labour MP's saying all Jews should be deported to the USA, we've had Ken Livingstone saying Hitler is a Zionist, we've had Labour councillors turn a blind eye to horrific stuff and I don't think I've ever seen you even call for action against a single one of them, let alone being sacked, you also stood up for the dismissal of Sarah Champion.

 

But Jacob Rees-Mogg has to go because he holds religious views he says he would never impose on anyone, even for you Nick this is pretty insane stuff. You are a seriously dangerous man and I'm glad you aren't in a position of power where you could use it.

Well the first part is fair enough - But I didn't ask for him to be expelled I think both the Tory party and Conservative voters should consider who they want representing them religious belief or not - its an extreme interpretation of the bible - Leviticus is full of shite - would we not dismiss him from his position for stoning his wife to death for wearing two different types of thread as well? This is the point where when religion is harmful - where do we draw the line of support and tolerance for it?

 

I also find statements horrifying regarding Jews as well but I don't need to mention it as I can just look in this thread to find you've been banging on about for a lifetime already! And I didn't stand up or call for her sacking I tried to reason with you as to why what was written might be considered inflammatory - which of course was a waste of time.

 

And you Matt calling me dangerous is the most hypocritical crap from someone so far to the right as yourself - You'd vote for a person that is against equal rights and human rights rather than an alternative option you find politically unfavourable... but I'm dangerous...  

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, MattP said:

Wow.

 

If the Conservative party ever expelled someone for holding a religious belief I would never vote for them again. This illiberal tyranny of trying to hound anyone who has a different opinion from what is considered the norm is already looking just as oppressive as the intolerance we have fought against before. 

 

The hypocrisy is astounding, we've had Labour MP's saying all Jews should be deported to the USA, we've had Ken Livingstone saying Hitler is a Zionist, we've had Labour councillors turn a blind eye to horrific stuff and I don't think I've ever seen you even call for action against a single one of them, let alone being sacked, you also stood up for the dismissal of Sarah Champion.

 

But Jacob Rees-Mogg has to go because he holds religious views he says he would never impose on anyone, even for you Nick this is pretty insane stuff. You are a seriously dangerous man and I'm glad you aren't in a position of power where you could use it.

 

Has he said this - I've not seen it?

 

If he has then there isn't a problem IMO.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

12 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Sorry, I'm a bit lost - what does Naz Shah believe which contravenes basic human rights?

Telling the girls abused in Rotherham to shut their mouths!

 

http://metro.co.uk/2017/08/23/mp-shares-tweet-saying-abuse-victims-should-shut-their-mouths-for-good-of-diversity-6872181/