Guest MattP Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said: 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... Very, I've known for years you would do anything to shut down a view you don't like but demanding others sack someone because you find their views abhorrent is something else, the mask slipped a bit there. A shining example of the horseshoe theory. Let's be honest, you would have been the one dancing with the corpses before the civil war started. Edited 8 September 2017 by MattP
Guest MattP Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 5 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Has he said this - I've not seen it? If he has then there isn't a problem IMO. He pretty much said in the interview there was zero chance of a change to the law. He should have been asked direct but it's obvious what his answer would be. 2 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: 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/ Pretty sure forced deportation from your homeland comes under it as well.
leicsmac Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 1 minute ago, Strokes said: 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. I'd be happy to - for instance, giving blood or an organ when someone is going to die if you don't and responsibility may or may not be a factor. Like in the case of pregnancy, a person is being asked to compromise their own bodily autonomy in order to preserve another life. Yet when it comes to giving blood and organs...the choice is always there to say no. Yes, it's morally heartless, but the choice exists. That JRM believes one shouldn't be permitted under any circumstances while saying nothing about the other is a double standard, and that the one he focuses on involves exclusively women invites at least the possibility that he wants to exert control only over women. And it's not like any of the Abrahamic religious texts when applied in that way are brilliant when it comes to womens rights, is it?
Nick Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 1 minute ago, Foxin_mad said: 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/ Yep thats disgraceful - especially the wording! Was it that victims were using social media in a manner that blamed sections of society rather than the individuals? Whatever she shouldn't have written that and especially not told a victim that they have no right to their freedom of speech and should have issued an apology and an explanation along with any retraction but even still its not quite comparable to being supportive of the notion that women raped should be keeping the products of their sexual assault...
leicsmac Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 2 minutes ago, MattP said: He pretty much said in the interview there was zero chance of a change to the law. He should have been asked direct but it's obvious what his answer would be. Hedging his bets a little there, I think. He should have been asked directly. Perhaps I'm a bit touchy on this score because I see what's happening regarding abortion clinics and difficulty accessing them in various parts of the US right now - the religious lobby decided it was more effective to use the legal route to make them difficult to get to than blow them up/shoot doctors - so I see very clearly what folks with views like his are doing over here.
Nick Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 5 minutes ago, MattP said: Very, I've known for years you would do anything to shut down a view you don't like but demanding others sack someone because you find their views abhorrent is something else, the mask slipped a bit there. A shining example of the horseshoe theory. Let's be honest, you would have been the one dancing with the corpses before the civil war started. Ah gone to the old rhetoric of cheap insults, stereotypes and hauling out a MASK SLIPPING reference about me oh thats incredible hypocrisy to use a phrase on me thats been attributed to you so many times over so many years of trolling and bans. When views breach human rights - yeah NOT FIT FOR OFFICE! I've no idea what bollox you are on about in the last line
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 1 minute ago, Swan Lesta said: Yep thats disgraceful - especially the wording! Was it that victims were using social media in a manner that blamed sections of society rather than the individuals? Whatever she shouldn't have written that and especially not told a victim that they have no right to their freedom of speech and should have issued an apology and an explanation along with any retraction but even still its not quite comparable to being supportive of the notion that women raped should be keeping the products of their sexual assault... I don't think it was to do with Social media is was just speaking out about it in general which they should. She is saying women raped should be told to 'shut up' to protect 'diversity' what a load of crap. We need to show dirty bastards for what they dirty bastards, if a particular community has a particular problem then they need to address it, in the open properly - not cover it up. This was the problem in the first place, no one dared speak out in case it was deemed 'racist' I wonder how often this happens up and down the country. She did also suggest all Jews be relocated. Not a nice woman at all and if JRM is unfit for office so should she. If we are going to ban people from office for extreme views, there's quite a long list in the Labour party. Diane Abbott another openly racist front bencher. Corbyn has long supported left wing regimes with dubious human rights records, McDonnell got out his little red book at the dispatch box.
Guest Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 (edited) 51 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. Absolutely not. It is down to voters. That is the point of freedom of thought and freedom of speech. He is free to think and say what he wants. He shouldn't be silenced and told its offensive to have specific views. But others are free to judge as they find and ultimately voters will decide if he represents them or not. This is tolerance and democracy in action. Edited 8 September 2017 by Guest
Guest Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 5 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: I don't think it was to do with Social media is was just speaking out about it in general which they should. She is saying women raped should be told to 'shut up' to protect 'diversity' what a load of crap. We need to show dirty bastards for what they dirty bastards, if a particular community has a particular problem then they need to address it, in the open properly - not cover it up. This was the problem in the first place, no one dared speak out in case it was deemed 'racist' I wonder how often this happens up and down the country. She did also suggest all Jews be relocated. Not a nice woman at all and if JRM is unfit for office so should she. If we are going to ban people from office for extreme views, there's quite a long list in the Labour party. Diane Abbott another openly racist front bencher. Corbyn has long supported left wing regimes with dubious human rights records, McDonnell got out his little red book at the dispatch box. How do you get from where you start to condemning corbyn for left wing human rights issues (as if the idea of human rights would exist if left to the right!) whilst ignoring tory support for equally or worse regimes? How do you block comments from particular posters on here?
Guest MattP Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 4 minutes ago, toddybad said: Absolutely not. It is down to voters. That is the point of freedom of thought and freedom of speech. He is free to think and say what he wants. He shouldn't be silenced and told its offensive to have specific views. But others are free to judge as they find and ultimately voters will decide if he represents them or not. This is tolerance and democracy in action. Spot on. Delighted that both people from the left and right can come together on this to stand up against extremists. Freedom of speech and freedom of belief in private or public life is sacrosanct.
Innovindil Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 2 minutes ago, toddybad said: How do you get from where you start to condemning corbyn for left wing human rights issues (as if the idea of human rights would exist if left to the right!) whilst ignoring tory support for equally or worse regimes? How do you block comments from particular posters on here? Type: /Safespace-Foxin_mad
Strokes Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 12 minutes ago, leicsmac said: I'd be happy to - for instance, giving blood or an organ when someone is going to die if you don't and responsibility may or may not be a factor. Like in the case of pregnancy, a person is being asked to compromise their own bodily autonomy in order to preserve another life. Yet when it comes to giving blood and organs...the choice is always there to say no. Yes, it's morally heartless, but the choice exists. That JRM believes one shouldn't be permitted under any circumstances while saying nothing about the other is a double standard, and that the one he focuses on involves exclusively women invites at least the possibility that he wants to exert control only over women. And it's not like any of the Abrahamic religious texts when applied in that way are brilliant when it comes to womens rights, is it? That's is a good point, well made. I'm not sure it's quite as comparable as you think but food for thought nonetheless. Do we know his views on giving blood? I think we should be forced to give blood and donate organs, yet agree with abortion to a point. It is double standards but not sexist.
Guest Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 Just now, MattP said: Spot on. Delighted that both people from the left and right can come together on this to stand up against extremists. Freedom of speech and freedom of belief in private or public life is sacrosanct. It did scare me you'd liked two of my comments in one day! I agree with what you're getting at though not a fan of the term sacrosanct for it's link to the word sacred. Nothing in this world is sacred.
Guest Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 Just now, Innovindil said: Type: /Safespace-Foxin_mad If i ask for a safespace from foxin I'll have the tories calling me a leftie snowflake
Guest MattP Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 16 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said: Ah gone to the old rhetoric of cheap insults, stereotypes and hauling out a MASK SLIPPING reference about me oh thats incredible hypocrisy to use a phrase on me thats been attributed to you so many times over so many years of trolling and bans. When views breach human rights - yeah NOT FIT FOR OFFICE! I've no idea what bollox you are on about in the last line The last line was a reference to the behaviour of some in the Spanish civil war. I'm going to call you "Griffin" from now on as that Nick would be proud of your authoritarianism.
leicsmac Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 2 minutes ago, Strokes said: That's is a good point, well made. I'm not sure it's quite as comparable as you think but food for thought nonetheless. Do we know his views on giving blood? I think we should be forced to give blood and donate organs, yet agree with abortion to a point. It is double standards but not sexist. I don't think we do - which also raises another point; why is that particular bodily autonomy issue a big political hot potato (though not so much in the UK as elsewhere) while others aren't? Is it solely because of the religious angle? I wouldn't agree with legislation to be forced to give blood and organs tbh just like I wouldn't agree with legislation banning abortion. I do think giving organs after you die should be opt-out rather than opt-in though.
Guest MattP Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 5 minutes ago, toddybad said: It did scare me you'd liked two of my comments in one day! I agree with what you're getting at though not a fan of the term sacrosanct for it's link to the word sacred. Nothing in this world is sacred. If me and you can agree on something then it's some serious cross party agreement
Innovindil Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 4 minutes ago, toddybad said: If i ask for a safespace from foxin I'll have the tories calling me a leftie snowflake We do anyways.
Guest MattP Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 (edited) 29 minutes ago, leicsmac said: That JRM believes one shouldn't be permitted under any circumstances while saying nothing about the other is a double standard, and that the one he focuses on involves exclusively women invites at least the possibility that he wants to exert control only over women. And it's not like any of the Abrahamic religious texts when applied in that way are brilliant when it comes to womens rights, is it? Whilst I totally understand the point of view, surely it's plainly obvious in the way he speaks that his view from this comes from his belief that life starts at the point of conception. I don't think having that belief means you want to exert control over women even if in practice that is what would happen. It's not a sexist viewpoint, just a religious one and therefore shouldn't play any role in the lawmaking of the nation. P.'S Now we all agree on this can we start the process of removing bishops from the House of Lords as well. Edited 8 September 2017 by MattP
Nick Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 Just now, Foxin_mad said: I don't think it was to do with Social media is was just speaking out about it in general which they should. She is saying women raped should be told to 'shut up' to protect 'diversity' what a load of crap. We need to show dirty bastards for what they dirty bastards, if a particular community has a particular problem then they need to address it, in the open properly - not cover it up. This was the problem in the first place, no one dared speak out in case it was deemed 'racist' I wonder how often this happens up and down the country. She did also suggest all Jews be relocated. Not a nice woman at all and if JRM is unfit for office so should she. If we are going to ban people from office for extreme views, there's quite a long list in the Labour party. Diane Abbott another openly racist front bencher. Corbyn has long supported left wing regimes with dubious human rights records, McDonnell got out his little red book at the dispatch box. I don't know much about her - your examples seem all fair enough in the context that they are all pretty awful views - I'm certainly no fan of any racist behaviour or supporting regimes with poor human rights records though I'm not sure you've provided evidence of parity here in relation to human rights breaches? 1 minute ago, toddybad said: Absolutely not. It is down to voters. That is the point of freedom of thought and freedom of speech. He is free to think and say what he wants. He shouldn't be silenced and told its offensive to have specific views. But others are free to judge as they find and ultimately voters will decide if he represents them or not. This is tolerance and democracy in action. So what would he have to say he personally believes in for the Tory party to want to distance themselves from him or get him to stand down as an MP or whatever. If its his personal belief that he supports the burning crosses on his front lawn - is that okay as well for him to hold office? MP's are forced to resign for all sorts of stuff over the years which I've been surprised about in relation to it not impacting on their job. I would argue that these views compromise the values of the Tory Party and may pose significant risk in relation to judgement and influencing policy. I'm simply exploring where the drawing of the line is in relation to fitness to practice and for me personally I'm suggesting its when a belief made public impacts on human rights of others and although saying he wouldn't act on it is in a position of power to influence... When do private beliefs become concern for those holding public office? Whats the threshold? 2 minutes ago, MattP said: Spot on. Delighted that both people from the left and right can come together on this to stand up against extremists. Freedom of speech and freedom of belief in private or public life is sacrosanct. Yes - I'm an extremist. And @MattP there's not enough irony in the world for you to ever get away with calling me "Nick Griffin" - after all - we all know who MATTP100's childhood idols were.
leicsmac Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 14 minutes ago, MattP said: Whilst I totally understand the point of view, surely it's plainly obvious in the way he speaks that his view from this comes from his belief that life starts at the point of conception. I don't think having that belief means you want to exert control over women even if in practice that is what would happen. It's not a sexist viewpoint, just a religious one and therefore shouldn't play any role in the lawmaking of the nation. P.S Now we all agree on this can we start the process of removing bishops from the House of Lords as well. You would think so, and it's likely it's the case - however as I said earlier the consequences of such beliefs and how they evolve (because like you said in practice it does happen) shouldn't be overlooked. And yes, I wouldn't have any religious reps in the House of Lords either. 1
Webbo Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 2 hours ago, Swan Lesta said: Matt how is it that you always seem to stick up for people who hold views that many find abhorrent? Isn't that what believing in free speech is all about?
Nick Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 1 minute ago, Webbo said: Isn't that what believing in free speech is all about? I think its perhaps more of a 'kindred spirit' thing Webbo.
Webbo Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 You either believe in free speech for people whose views you find abhorrent or you don't believe in free speech at all. 1
Nick Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 1 minute ago, Webbo said: You either believe in free speech for people whose views you find abhorrent or you don't believe in free speech at all. Yes Webbo.
Recommended Posts