Guest Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 2 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said: 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? The electorate call recall an mp. I suppose for a party it would have its own rules. My issue here is that i don't agree with him but on both points he made you can find a valid argument even of many disagree. If you accept he genuinslly believes that nobody should hsve the right to end the life of an umborn baby on purpose - and there's nothing imherently distasteful in that opinion - then it is possible to see how this creates the moral space to give his opinion validity in more extreme versions of the same question. Unless anything has happened thst I've missed since his tv interview he has said things me and you don't agree with but they're not inherently disgusting ideas.
leicsmac Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 1 minute ago, Foxin_mad said: 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. 3 This is pretty much spot on. One caveat: we know a lot about these things (ego, greed etc) and can overcome them if we want to.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 (edited) 20 minutes ago, David Guiza said: 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. If you disagree with someone is the best thing not to do to ignore them, it wont give them a platform if everyone does that. They are his personal views, he has made it clear that is down to his religion, many Catholics believe the same. Many Muslims also believe some pretty terrible things too, at what point do we stop? Unless we ban religion. Again, people haven't made this fuss over Naz Shah who has persistently made abhorrent comments, or Dianne abbot? I wonder why? 19 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said: 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? Who decides what views are abhorrent and/or what is an acceptable view to hold in office? Ken Livingston is a massive bellend but he was Mayor of London once. We are already aware that May is a mad lunatic but she is still a safer lunatic than that Jeremy bloke Where do we draw the line? Edited 8 September 2017 by Foxin_mad
Nick Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 1 minute ago, toddybad said: The electorate call recall an mp. I suppose for a party it would have its own rules. My issue here is that i don't agree with him but on both points he made you can find a valid argument even of many disagree. If you accept he genuinslly believes that nobody should hsve the right to end the life of an umborn baby on purpose - and there's nothing imherently distasteful in that opinion - then it is possible to see how this creates the moral space to give his opinion validity in more extreme versions of the same question. Unless anything has happened thst I've missed since his tv interview he has said things me and you don't agree with but they're not inherently disgusting ideas. He didn't say he wouldn't impose his views - he said the current law permits a woman's right to choose and that wasn't going to change... I hear your point - I really do. So for me this has been about a threshold to hold public office and the consequences / ramifications of this MP's beliefs would result in breaches of human rights for women and the LGBT community and so I'm questioning if we don't get rid of MP's for holding views that are contrary to human rights statutes as a minimum standard for office - is anybody who discloses any belief currently in office acceptable to remain in their role?
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 9 minutes ago, leicsmac said: This is pretty much spot on. One caveat: we know a lot about these things (ego, greed etc) and can overcome them if we want to. I would love to know how! The solution is probably to live a much simpler lifestyle preferably without money but making the rest of society conform would be difficult.
Nick Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 1 minute ago, Foxin_mad said: Where do we draw the line? Beliefs that contravene the human rights of groups or individuals is what I've been putting forward for some pages now... People can hold beliefs but surely some beliefs make them not fit for office especially if disclosed post election and present a conflict of interest with either party or the constituents who elected the individual?
leicsmac Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 3 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: I would love to know how! The solution is probably to live a much simpler lifestyle preferably without money but making the rest of society conform would be difficult. So would I! It's essential to the future that we do. But yeah, it's such a difficult problem to come at least close to balancing.
Guest Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said: He didn't say he wouldn't impose his views - he said the current law permits a woman's right to choose and that wasn't going to change... I hear your point - I really do. So for me this has been about a threshold to hold public office and the consequences / ramifications of this MP's beliefs would result in breaches of human rights for women and the LGBT community and so I'm questioning if we don't get rid of MP's for holding views that are contrary to human rights statutes as a minimum standard for office - is anybody who discloses any belief currently in office acceptable to remain in their role? The trouble being that he would argue he is upholding the human rights of the unborn baby. I don't agree that he is talking about supressing anybody's human rights. My opinion is anybody elected, no matter what their opinion, has been elected. They would have to have a party full of people of the same view and enough agreeable voters to give them a parlimentary majority in order to enact their opinion. Who gets to decide which opinions are valid and which are not otherwise? The law doesn't help because mps write laws and therefore have to be able to express agreement for unlawful activity to discuss changes to the law. I personally find it horrific that the uk is renewing trident. Once upon a time it did not have nukes and the question of producing bombs of that power would have been seen as morally unacceptable. That has changed. We now have a situation where mattp suggested corbyn's opposition to trident is "repugnant". There is no unifying and unchanging truth. You have to allow difference and you have to allow true freedom of expression. Edited 8 September 2017 by Guest
Webbo Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 11 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said: Beliefs that contravene the human rights of groups or individuals is what I've been putting forward for some pages now... People can hold beliefs but surely some beliefs make them not fit for office especially if disclosed post election and present a conflict of interest with either party or the constituents who elected the individual? What about the right to life? Jeremy Corbyn was arrested outside the trial of the Brighton Bomber. Why aren't you saying he's not fit for office?
Nick Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 Just now, toddybad said: There is no unifying and unchanging truth. You have to allow difference and you have to allow true freedom of expression. I am trying but people in public office influence and develop policy and so I fear for people working around him, in local government and his constituents - as they learn now the beliefs held by the person they voted in.
Buce Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 38 minutes 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 wherei 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. On here? Are you on drugs? 2
Nick Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 Just now, Webbo said: What about the right to life? Jeremy Corbyn was arrested outside the trial of the Brighton Bomber. Why aren't you saying he's not fit for office? Oh Webbo He may well not be - but until he goes on Good Morning TV and says he believes the Brighton Bomber did the right thing and he supports his bombing actions wholeheartedly - lets continue to discuss the debate in hand.
leicsmac Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 6 minutes ago, Webbo said: What about the right to life? Jeremy Corbyn was arrested outside the trial of the Brighton Bomber. Why aren't you saying he's not fit for office? We've discussed this before Webs, but reminded that in no other situation does the right to life be argued to supercede the right to bodily autonomy. The double standard is the real problem.
Webbo Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 1 minute ago, Swan Lesta said: Oh Webbo He may well not be - but until he goes on Good Morning TV and says he believes the Brighton Bomber did the right thing and he supports his bombing actions wholeheartedly - lets continue to discuss the debate in hand. He appeared at IRA rallies, as reported in Republican newspapers. Is it okay to contravene someone's human rights as long as you don't do it in Good Morning Britain?
Webbo Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 Just now, leicsmac said: We've discussed this before Webs, but reminded that in no other situation does the right to life be argued to supercede the right to bodily autonomy. The double standard is the real problem. I wish you wouldn't use these terms like body autonomy. Why can't you just say abortion?
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said: Beliefs that contravene the human rights of groups or individuals is what I've been putting forward for some pages now... People can hold beliefs but surely some beliefs make them not fit for office especially if disclosed post election and present a conflict of interest with either party or the constituents who elected the individual? You could argue that all kinds of beliefs contravene or could contravene human rights. People may argue that cuts are inflicting the 'human rights' of certain groups, you could argue that mass immigration if affecting peoples human rights, that taking money from people and redistributing it is against the person who earned the moneys human rights. Labour and the Tories have supported dubious regimes now and in the past! and will doubtless continue to do so to suit their policitical agenda. At what point do we stop? Its very difficult to do it without agenda. Do you ban all strict Catholics and Muslims from office because of their religious beliefs? Edited 8 September 2017 by Foxin_mad
Guest Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 15 minutes ago, Webbo said: What about the right to life? Jeremy Corbyn was arrested outside the trial of the Brighton Bomber. Why aren't you saying he's not fit for office? Just when we were getting on so well
Webbo Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 Just now, toddybad said: Just when we were getting on so well I'm just pointing out the double standards, we're still on the same page on this (I think).
leicsmac Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Webbo said: I wish you wouldn't use these terms like body autonomy. Why can't you just say abortion? Why not? Pregnancy is an act that compromises bodily autonomy in order to preserve the life of another human being. Abortion is choosing to not have that happen where responsibility may or may not be a factor, like refusing to give blood or otherwise preserve the life of a human in another way. I'm sorry if you find the analogy distasteful but it pretty clearly applies IMO. Personally, I most likely wouldn't make that choice in either circumstance (birth control exists for a reason and most often I'd choose to give blood/organs if the need was dire), but I would go to the mattresses to ensure that the choice exists. And so I would go against anyone who might even come close to wanting to take that choice away. Edited 8 September 2017 by leicsmac
Guest Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 1 minute ago, Webbo said: I'm just pointing out the double standards, we're still on the same page on this (I think). Only so far as i don't think what either wrm has said or corbyn has done are as bad as people say
Webbo Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 11 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Why not? Pregnancy is an act that compromises bodily autonomy in order to preserve the life of another human being. Abortion is choosing to not have that happen where responsibility may or may not be a factor, like refusing to give blood or otherwise preserve the life of a human in another way. I'm sorry if you find the analogy distasteful but it pretty clearly applies IMO. Personally, I most likely wouldn't make that choice in either circumstance (birth control exists for a reason and most often I'd choose to give blood/organs if the need was dire), but I would go to the mattresses to ensure that the choice exists. And so I would go against anyone who might even come close to wanting to take that choice away. I don't find it distasteful just dishonest. We're clearly talking about abortion, using a different term is trying to lessen what we're talking about. I'm not keen on abortion, I'm not as extreme about it as JRM but I'd certainly restrict it more if it was up to me.
Alf Bentley Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 11 minutes ago, Webbo said: He appeared at IRA rallies, as reported in Republican newspapers. Is it okay to contravene someone's human rights as long as you don't do it in Good Morning Britain? A C4 "Fact Check" assessment of claims about Corbyn and Northern Irish politics: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-corbyn-on-northern-ireland I've no intention of getting into another "debate" about this with you, as it didn't lead anywhere useful or pleasant last time. But it's worth posting an attempt at an independent assessment of the facts (though parts are inconclusive). I'm posting it in the interests of Corbyn's views being properly represented, not because I agree with them. Whatever you think of Ireland's complicated history, simply calling for a United Ireland and Troops Out in the 80s/90s was naive, in my opinion. There needed to be compromise on both sides - as there was with the Good Friday Agreement. 1
leicsmac Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 3 minutes ago, Webbo said: I don't find it distasteful just dishonest. We're clearly talking about abortion, using a different term is trying to lessen what we're talking about. I'm not keen on abortion, I'm not as extreme about it as JRM but I'd certainly restrict it more if it was up to me. Fair enough. I think the terminology applies and both should be used concurrently. I'm not keen on it either but AFAIC the right to choose supersedes any distaste I might have.
Webbo Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 Just now, Alf Bentley said: A C4 "Fact Check" assessment of claims about Corbyn and Northern Irish politics: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-corbyn-on-northern-ireland I've no intention of getting into another "debate" about this with you, as it didn't lead anywhere useful or pleasant last time. But it's worth posting an attempt at an independent assessment of the facts (though parts are inconclusive). I'm posting it in the interests of Corbyn's views being properly represented, not because I agree with them. Whatever you think of Ireland's complicated history, simply calling for a United Ireland and Troops Out in the 80s/90s was naive, in my opinion. There needed to be compromise on both sides - as there was with the Good Friday Agreement. The discussion is should people be barred from office because of certain beliefs. I'm just pointing out that lots of people have beliefs that others find offensive/against somebody's human rights but some people are selective about who they want to ban.
Carl the Llama Posted 8 September 2017 Posted 8 September 2017 4 minutes ago, Webbo said: I'm just pointing out the double standards, we're still on the same page on this (I think). You mean the double standard of getting up in arms about - and constantly trying to revive - the IRA issue but not batting an eyelid at JRM's comments? It seems to me that most people's definition of appropriate outrage is pretty fluid and tends to be dependant on the political affiliation of the 'offending' party. Fwiw I think Mogg's been pretty astute here: His words will have endeared him to the many voters with archaic beliefs as well as garnering favour with the loathsome 'right vs left' lot who relish in the inevitable social media over-reaction from thin-skinned idiots with no political say (or usually even any awareness of the context in which the things they're reacting to were said) as though it represents all of their 'enemies' on the other side of the spectrum... something we see a lot of in these discussions on here.
Recommended Posts