Guest Foxin_mad Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 (edited) 45 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? Point I am making is that people mostly should be allowed to say what they want whatever side they are on and whatever their beliefs. Human rights I am sure would exist if left to the centre ground as they should be, of course go too far to the left and you get Gulags!! I am well aware all regimes support dubious regimes and have never denied that, what I am trying to point out here is that many on the left have a holier than thou view about human rights, freedom of speech etc unless someone is saying something they don't like. For me people can say what they like and do what they like. What we cant start doing is criticising JRM for being honest about his beliefs, and not do the same on the other side! I have no problems with anyone views they are perfectly entitled to have their own views and judgements, it doesn't mean any of us have to think they are right, or be friends with them or vote for them or whatever. JRM would never get a mandate to implement any of his religious beliefs from the public, so really his views are irrelevant. Edited 8 September 2017 by Foxin_mad
Webbo Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 Just now, Swan Lesta said: Yes Webbo. Then try it for a change.
leicsmac Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 2 minutes 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. Freedom of speech goes hand in hand with the freedom to take the consequences - the freedom on which all the others are based.
Nick Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 Just now, Webbo said: Then try it for a change. You're missing my point but that's okay.
Webbo Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 Just now, leicsmac said: Freedom of speech goes hand in hand with the freedom to take the consequences - the freedom on which all the others are based. Not sure what you're trying to say.
Nick Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 1 minute ago, Webbo said: Not sure what you're trying to say. I don't think you're sure what anybody is trying to say judging by your last posts! 1
leicsmac Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 Just now, Webbo said: Not sure what you're trying to say. That JRM is totally fine to say and believe what he likes, but other people are also fine to call him out on it and pressure the Tory party to take action against him as a consequence of that speech - provided he is free to continue to have a platform of some kind to speak. 5 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: Point I am making is that people mostly should be allowed to say what they want whatever side they are on and whatever their beliefs. Human rights I am sure would exist if left to the centre ground as they should be, of course go too far to the left and you get Gulags!! I am well aware all regimes support dubious regimes and have never denied that, what I am trying to point out here is that many on the left have a holier than thou view about human rights, freedom of speech etc unless someone is saying something they don't like. For me people can say what they like and do what they like. What we cant start doing is criticising JRM for being honest about his beliefs, and not do the same on the other side! I have no problems with anyone views they are perfectly entitled to have their own views and judgements, it doesn't mean any of us have to think they are right, or be friends with them or vote for them or whatever. JRM would never get a mandate to implement any of his religious beliefs from the public, so really his views are irrelevant. 6 You'd think so, wouldn't you - and it's likely the case in the UK, thankfully. But you never know. It is not the case, however, in other places. Enough people believe in something abhorrent and it becomes law.
Webbo Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 2 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said: I don't think you're sure what anybody is trying to say judging by your last posts! Lighten up sulky arse, you can't win them all.
Webbo Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 2 minutes ago, leicsmac said: That JRM is totally fine to say and believe what he likes, but other people are also fine to call him out on it and pressure the Tory party to take action against him as a consequence of that speech - provided he is free to continue to have a platform of some kind to speak. It's up to his constituents to decide at election time whether they want him to continue as their MP. Nobody has a right to hound him for his opinions. I said the same about Tim Farron btw, this isn't party political.
Nick Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 So. Back to the unanswered question. What is (or even should be) the threshold for somebody not being fit for public office because they have disclosed publicly private beliefs? It can not be as simplistic as to state that holders of a public office can harbour any belief they like and make it public that they hold said belief and keep their job - where is the threshold and is this threshold somewhat different if the belief has religious foundations? What would a belief publicly disclosed look like that would cause a removal from office because of party compromise or public outcry?
Nick Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 4 minutes ago, Webbo said: Lighten up sulky arse, you can't win them all. I'm not contesting freedom of speech you tit! I'm suggesting Mr. P sticks up for such abhorrent individuals because they are kindred spirits to perhaps some of his own views!
Webbo Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 1 minute ago, Swan Lesta said: So. Back to the unanswered question. What is (or even should be) the threshold for somebody not being fit for public office because they have disclosed publicly private beliefs? It can not be as simplistic as to state that holders of a public office can harbour any belief they like and make it public that they hold said belief and keep their job - where is the threshold and is this threshold somewhat different if the belief has religious foundations? What would a belief publicly disclosed look like that would cause a removal from office because of party compromise or public outcry? Like for example attending IRA rallies, expressing support for a regime that murders it's own citizens? If I decide I'm offended by something can I have somebody removed from office?
lifted*fox Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 Popped in to see what's going on in here since I decided to stop bothering with this bullshit thread and it's lolz to see you're all still going round in circles. Trust me, avoid this thread and your lives will be infinitely happier.
Steven Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 4 minutes ago, Webbo said: Like for example attending IRA rallies, expressing support for a regime that murders it's own citizens? If I decide I'm offended by something can I have somebody removed from office? MI5, RUC.
Nick Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 Just now, Webbo said: Like for example attending IRA rallies, expressing support for a regime that murders it's own citizens? If I decide I'm offended by something can I have somebody removed from office? Okay we're going backwards again. No Webbo - try and not make this about left and right.... Let's take your example though - I would argue no because its not about you being offended by Corbyn - I was trying put forward a debate to see where the line is... So had Corbyn come out during his election campaign and said I believe in the IRA and their pursuit of blowing up English citizens - then yeah he is not fit for office because his beliefs cause conflict of interest with human rights and the position of power he is in currently and sought at the time... Do you see - it's not about left or right its an attempt at having a philosophical / political debate.
Guest Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 40 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said: 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? 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? 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. Incitement to violence perhaps? Just having views you find distasteful is not a good enough reason. Whilst i am a leftie, i do have serious issues with the way other leftie's claim to have the only allowable opinion. If his opinions were really disgusting - and the views and rationale for those views as he has given them are out of kilter with current thinking rather than inherently bad i would argue - not that i agree with them - then he wouldn't get voted in. To be tolerant is to allow everybody an opinion, not to limit opinion to only a select few allowable options. 12 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: Point I am making is that people mostly should be allowed to say what they want whatever side they are on and whatever their beliefs. Human rights I am sure would exist if left to the centre ground as they should be, of course go too far to the left and you get Gulags!! I am well aware all regimes support dubious regimes and have never denied that, what I am trying to point out here is that many on the left have a holier than thou view about human rights, freedom of speech etc unless someone is saying something they don't like. For me people can say what they like and do what they like. What we cant start doing is criticising JRM for being honest about his beliefs, and not do the same on the other side! I have no problems with anyone views they are perfectly entitled to have their own views and judgements, it doesn't mean any of us have to think they are right, or be friends with them or vote for them or whatever. JRM would never get a mandate to implement any of his religious beliefs from the public, so really his views are irrelevant. Again, you make some points but im the middle make random reference to the left and gulags. You just cannot approach any subject with neutrality can you?
Webbo Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 1 minute ago, Swan Lesta said: Okay we're going backwards again. No Webbo - try and not make this about left and right.... Let's take your example though - I would argue no because its not about you being offended by Corbyn - I was trying put forward a debate to see where the line is... So had Corbyn come out during his election campaign and said I believe in the IRA and their pursuit of blowing up English citizens - then yeah he is not fit for office because his beliefs cause conflict of interest with human rights and the position of power he is in currently and sought at the time... Do you see - it's not about left or right its an attempt at having a philosophical / political debate. My line is supporting the IRA. I don't say he doesn't have the right to or that he should be barred from office but I think voters should consider that when voting.
Webbo Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 2 minutes ago, toddybad said: Incitement to violence perhaps? Just having views you find distasteful is not a good enough reason. Whilst i am a leftie, i do have serious issues with the way other leftie's claim to have the only allowable opinion. If his opinions were really disgusting - and the views and rationale for those views as he has given them are out of kilter with current thinking rather than inherently bad i would argue - not that i agree with them - then he wouldn't get voted in. To be tolerant is to allow everybody an opinion, not to limit opinion to only a select few allowable options. Again, you make some points but im the middle make random reference to the left and gulags. You just cannot approach any subject with neutrality can you? When did you become sensible?
David Guiza Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 21 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: I have no problems with anyone views they are perfectly entitled to have their own views and judgements, it doesn't mean any of us have to think they are right, or be friends with them or vote for them or whatever. JRM would never get a mandate to implement any of his religious beliefs from the public, so really his views are irrelevant. Absolute nonsense. His views, regardless of whether they can implemented in practice, are hugely significant. If you're telling me you would ignore views of that nature simply because they can't be put into practice then I would really question your morals. Surely his/any other MPs views are perhaps the most significant factor as to whether they are electable/undetectable. You constantly claim that Corbyn has all these Marxist/Leninist views, the vast majority of which (even if true) would never be allowed to be put into fruition, yet you still hold it against him/the party. I would never take away anyone's right to free speech however some people really do miss the point of the freedom of speech. It is not freedom from criticism or repercussion. The rights and freedoms are so often misjudged, like the morons whom claimed that the Hunting Ban was an infringement on their freedom of assembly. 1
leicsmac Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 20 minutes ago, Webbo said: It's up to his constituents to decide at election time whether they want him to continue as their MP. Nobody has a right to hound him for his opinions. I said the same about Tim Farron btw, this isn't party political. If he speaks about his beliefs in public, people have the right to respond to it in public too as long as he can still give his viewpoint IMO.
Nick Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 Just now, toddybad said: Incitement to violence perhaps? Just having views you find distasteful is not a good enough reason. Whilst i am a leftie, i do have serious issues with the way other leftie's claim to have the only allowable opinion. If his opinions were really disgusting - and the views and rationale for those views as he has given them are out of kilter with current thinking rather than inherently bad i would argue - not that i agree with them - then he wouldn't get voted in. To be tolerant is to allow everybody an opinion, not to limit opinion to only a select few allowable options. Absolutely - this is now touching on my posts above ( I realise this was a reply to an earlier post ) So what happens if such views become disclosed after someone has been voted in.... Lets say the Prime Minister tomorrow discloses that she holds the private belief that she believes in David Icke's Lizard theory and she has faith in the reptilian community that runs the earth. Because according to arguments presented on here we have to swallow this and keep her in office as we can't sack somebody because of something they believe.... Whilst the above may sound crazy - thats how extreme elements of mainstream religion appear to many people. Is she fit to run the country knowing that she thinks it doesn't matter what decision she makes because she going to be made welcome by the lizard people when the nukes go off? Is it people or party that would be responsible in this instance to address her competency to hold public office?
Guest Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 1 minute ago, Webbo said: When did you become sensible? I've always been sensible webbo. People first, whether that be in terms of their right to have an opinion, economically, socially or otherwise. I actually find freedom of speech arguments quite strange. You would think that freedom of speech historically would be an idea of the liberal left. These days it is the so called liberals - mainly but not entirely of the left - that seem to want to shut down free speech. As i said yesterday, there is a bell curve of opinion and the centre will hold a selection of individual views from the left and right. Whilst you see me as ultra left, i actually have a range of opinion on some issues which are right of centre. I'd say overally I'm centre left - i do not accept that wanting nationalisation (something all parties supported 50 years ago) has become super left. The reason i struggle with you sometimes is i can't see ANY left of centre thinking leading me to conclude you are quite a way to the right. That means on a good number of issues where i am to the left we are a very long way apart.
Webbo Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 1 minute ago, leicsmac said: If he speaks about his beliefs in public, people have the right to respond to it in public too as long as he can still give his viewpoint IMO. Frank discussion, acceptable. Abuse, unacceptable.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 9 minutes ago, toddybad said: Incitement to violence perhaps? Just having views you find distasteful is not a good enough reason. Whilst i am a leftie, i do have serious issues with the way other leftie's claim to have the only allowable opinion. If his opinions were really disgusting - and the views and rationale for those views as he has given them are out of kilter with current thinking rather than inherently bad i would argue - not that i agree with them - then he wouldn't get voted in. To be tolerant is to allow everybody an opinion, not to limit opinion to only a select few allowable options. Again, you make some points but im the middle make random reference to the left and gulags. You just cannot approach any subject with neutrality can you? I absolutely can. You summarised the reason above in your first line. If all lefties had that attitude it would be fine, its the holier than thou thing which is the problem and leads me to having digs. People can have their views, great we can debate them. We have to agree overall that not one system is perfect, no person is perfect and no system will ever be perfect as it is open to the greatest problem, human ego, greed and the inbuilt function to survive at all costs.
leicsmac Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 3 minutes ago, Webbo said: Frank discussion, acceptable. Abuse, unacceptable. I'd find abuse distasteful, but as long as that abuse doesn't involve threatening him or taking away his platform...I think it should be allowed.
Recommended Posts