Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Webbo]

Just now, Carl the Llama said:

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.

I'm not trying to revive anything. Nick took great offence at the mere mention of this subject as if nobody had a right to object. Now he's telling us people should be barred from office because he disagrees with their views. I never said Jezza shouldn't be allowed to be an MP.

[Carl the Llama]

9 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I'm not trying to revive anything. Nick took great offence at the mere mention of this subject as if nobody had a right to object. Now he's telling us people should be barred from office because he disagrees with their views. I never said Jezza shouldn't be allowed to be an MP.

I'll take your word for it because I cba to look back through all the pre-election guff but I recall you being exceedingly militant on the issue and I'm 90% certain you used phrases like 'enemy of the people', which isn't a lot better let's be honest.

[Nick]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I'm not trying to revive anything. Nick took great offence at the mere mention of this subject as if nobody had a right to object. Now he's telling us people should be barred from office because he disagrees with their views. I never said Jezza shouldn't be allowed to be an MP.

 

 

I really didn't take offence at the mere mention of anything and certainly didn't say nobody had a right to object - as usual you have ran in with the same old arguments and you wonder why people are frustrated.

 

I've been asking now for some pages where the threshold for beliefs that compromise or conflict with either the office or the party you represent should be.

 

You however respond with weird aggression, re-hashing Corbyn bashing rhetoric like I'm some kind of fan of his - and wonder why you get the responses you do.

[Webbo]

Just now, Carl the Llama said:

I'll take your word for it because I cba to look back through all the pre-election guff but I recall you being exceedingly militant on the issue and I'm 90% certain you used phrases like 'enemy of the people', which isn't a lot better let's be honest.

I can assure you I did not.

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, Webbo said:

I can assure you I did not.

Furry muff, must've one of the other resident Tory flag fliers.  The point is you were aghast that anybody could support a politician with the beliefs you insisted him to hold, I'm not sure Nick's response to JRM's views that the man himself avowed is vastly different other than in where it falls on the political spectrum.

[Webbo]

Just now, Swan Lesta said:

 

 

 

You however respond with weird aggression, re-hashing Corbyn bashing rhetoric like I'm some kind of fan of his - and wonder why you get the responses you do.

Not aggressive at all. Mattp said he didn't agree with JRM's views but you said he was a kindred spirit. Now you haven't condemned Corbyn's actions, if fact you got very aggressive everytime I mentioned the subject. Can we imply you're a kindred spirit?

 

As for the debate you either ban every opinion that anyone might find offensive, which is clearly ridiculous or you don't ban any( with the exception of inciting violence) We can't have one side deciding what's acceptable and what's not.

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

7 minutes ago, Webbo said:

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.

 

I think actions like bans and censorship should be kept to an absolute minimum - for inciting violence/hatred/criminality etc. I certainly don't think Rees-Mogg should be barred from office.

I don't agree with his views but would hope that he'd be prevented from implementing them through the democratic process, not bans.

 

Incidentally, if you're going to criticise Leicsmac for his choice of language, maybe you could be a bit more careful about your own choice of words?

Corbyn undoubtedly attended Republican rallies and met people who had been (and maybe still were) IRA members....as many others did.

I doubt very much that he "attended IRA rallies" - not least because, as an underground terrorist organisation, I don't think the IRA held rallies - though no doubt IRA members numbered among those attending Republican rallies.

 

 

 

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I think actions like bans and censorship should be kept to an absolute minimum - for inciting violence/hatred/criminality etc. I certainly don't think Rees-Mogg should be barred from office.

I don't agree with his views but would hope that he'd be prevented from implementing them through the democratic process, not bans.

 

Incidentally, if you're going to criticise Leicsmac for his choice of language, maybe you could be a bit more careful about your own choice of words?

Corbyn undoubtedly attended Republican rallies and met people who had been (and maybe still were) IRA members....as many others did.

I doubt very much that he "attended IRA rallies" - not least because, as an underground terrorist organisation, I don't think the IRA held rallies - though no doubt IRA members numbered among those attending Republican rallies.

 

 

 

I've no wish to go down that cul-de-sac again. I'm just using the IRA thing to make a point.

[Alf Bentley]

8 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I've no wish to go down that cul-de-sac again. I'm just using the IRA thing to make a point.

 

Fair dos. Likewise, I've made any point that I had to make - and also want to avoid cul-de-sacs. 

[David Guiza]

1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said:

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?

 

This isn't the playground. Of course there are situations where it is best to ignore nonsensical views, but I don't think it's the best decision to just ignore that kind of comment. People who make these kind of comments in positions of authority especially need to be ridiculed 

 

I don't really see your point. It's not as though you have to chose between Catholicism or Islam as to which is morally corrupt and which is fine. I and other can condemn the beliefs and teachings of both. It's not a case of banning religion, it's a case of pointing out when somebody/a group of people are wrong. I would hate to live in a world whereby we let comments like this, Naz Shah or anybody of any political background be able to say whatever the hell they like without ridicule or challenge and simply ignored in the hope that they go away.

 

If the comments came out of the mouths of anyone from a Tory to my mother I would still criticise the life out of it. I don't understand this point scoring nonsense of 'well it's not as bad as what they said'. I will happily condemn anything that comes out of the mouth of Labour MP, supporter etc that I didn't agree with/was appalled by. The same way that I would an LCFC player.  

[Nick]

Just now, Webbo said:

Not aggressive at all. Mattp said he didn't agree with JRM's views but you said he was a kindred spirit. Now you haven't condemned Corbyn's actions, if fact you got very aggressive everytime I mentioned the subject. Can we imply you're a kindred spirit?

 

As for the debate you either ban every opinion that anyone might find offensive, which is clearly ridiculous or you don't ban any( with the exception of inciting violence) We can't have one side deciding what's acceptable and what's not.

 

 

1. You do come over as aggressive.

 

2. My comment directed at MattP was to do with him having in common views that others didn't like - not the same views as JRM.

 

3. I get frustrated because you rushed in making everything about right and left again which wasn't what it was all about and still isn't. 

 

4. Its not to do with sides. It's about if beliefs might compromise acceptable behaviour for a public servant or politician in line with the party rules or if extreme beliefs maybe affect human rights policies and should they be using their public platform to air them? - I'm asking where the lines to fitness to retain office should be drawn and who should decide this because MP's are forced to resign all the time for slips in language or their actions which often have very limited consequences but a person who comes out in the middle of their public office tenure introducing beliefs which many women and LGBT groups will be wondering why in the hell they voted for such a man - is that acceptable and if so, are there limits to beliefs tolerated in office. Inciting violence is a crime - holding beliefs are not but can beliefs compromise a position of public office - at what point does a party draw the line?

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

1. You do come over as aggressive.

 

2. My comment directed at MattP was to do with him having in common views that others didn't like - not the same views as JRM.

 

3. I get frustrated because you rushed in making everything about right and left again which wasn't what it was all about and still isn't. 

 

4. Its not to do with sides. It's about if beliefs might compromise acceptable behaviour for a public servant or politician in line with the party rules or if extreme beliefs maybe affect human rights policies and should they be using their public platform to air them? - I'm asking where the lines to fitness to retain office should be drawn and who should decide this because MP's are forced to resign all the time for slips in language or their actions which often have very limited consequences but a person who comes out in the middle of their public office tenure introducing beliefs which many women and LGBT groups will be wondering why in the hell they voted for such a man - is that acceptable and if so, are there limits to beliefs tolerated in office. Inciting violence is a crime - holding beliefs are not but can beliefs compromise a position of public office - at what point does a party draw the line?

1. I don't intend to come across aggressive and re reading my comments I don't believe I am. I think some people make assumptions based more on prejudice rather than fact.

 

2. I found it aggressive.

 

3.I didn't make it left or right at all, I was agreeing with Toddybad a lot during the discussion. It's noticeable though that you're never offended by left wing figures.

 

4. I've answered this a couple of times.

[Strokes]

2 hours ago, 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.

It's not double standards because it is different. In one case you are neglecting to save and the other wilfully terminating existence. you might be comparing similar things from a scientific point of view but the morality is very different.

[Guest]

Anyway......

 

The current debate has resolved into two people telling each other they found the other rude so it's probably time to move on.

 

Purely because I'm getting worried by mattp and webbo agreeing with me here is a piece by vince cable that includes the line "one of the ironies of the immigration debate is that the Conservatives, who normally take refuge in the wisdom of markets, have an almost Soviet enthusiasm for centralised government direction and the wisdom of bureaucracy when it comes to migration."

 

The Tory fallacy: that migrants are taking British jobs and driving down wages

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/08/tory-fallacy-migrants-british-jobs-wages-brexit?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Anyway......

 

The current debate has resolved into two people telling each other they found the other rude so it's probably time to move on.

 

Purely because I'm getting worried by mattp and webbo agreeing with me here is a piece by vince cable that includes the line "one of the ironies of the immigration debate is that the Conservatives, who normally take refuge in the wisdom of markets, have an almost Soviet enthusiasm for centralised government direction and the wisdom of bureaucracy when it comes to migration."

 

The Tory fallacy: that migrants are taking British jobs and driving down wages

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/08/tory-fallacy-migrants-british-jobs-wages-brexit?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

I agree, in the current climate reducing immigration figures for the sake of it would be a mistake. They can't reduce it until we leave, apart from making us less appealing anyway and who knows what the job market will look like when we do. In short it's all a fuss about nothing.

[Webbo]

 

Vince Cable seemed to have a different view back in January.

 

Quote

 

Vince Cable makes the liberal case for immigration controls.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/01/why-its-time-end-eu-free-movement

 

 

[leicsmac]

23 minutes ago, Strokes said:

It's not double standards because it is different. In one case you are neglecting to save and the other wilfully terminating existence. you might be comparing similar things from a scientific point of view but the morality is very different.

Hmmm...I'd argue that refusing to help someone dying who needed blood and/or an organ from you (if you were the only match that could be found in time) could be seen as wilfully terminating their existence and getting an abortion could be seen as neglecting to save the life of another human. What exactly, makes them different? That in one case a human has lived longer? The issue of responsibility which is variable in every case of that type?

 

I honestly am looking for a solid reason that seeing someone dying and refusing to help them by giving them a part of your body is somehow less immoral than refusing to lend a part of your body to keep a baby alive for the time needed.

[Strokes]

15 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Hmmm...I'd argue that refusing to help someone dying who needed blood and/or an organ from you (if you were the only match that could be found in time) could be seen as wilfully terminating their existence and getting an abortion could be seen as neglecting to save the life of another human. What exactly, makes them different? That in one case a human has lived longer? The issue of responsibility which is variable in every case of that type?

 

I honestly am looking for a solid reason that seeing someone dying and refusing to help them by giving them a part of your body is somehow less immoral than refusing to lend a part of your body to keep a baby alive for the time needed.

Not giving blood or organs is like walking past someone who is dying on the street and doing nothing to help. Abortion is choosing to not allow something to live, that isn't dying. It's very different.

[theessexfox]

I feel like many people act as if the argument about abortion is definitively won - pro-choice = good and pro-life = bad, and that's a barometer of a person's ethics. Religion or no religion, for me it's a very grey area and there's not necessarily a correct moral answer. I am in favour of abortions when it's deemed the only option and definitely in rape cases, but it makes me uncomfortable when people act as if it's a clear cut question. 

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, theessexfox said:

I feel like many people act as if the argument about abortion is definitively won - pro-choice = good and pro-life = bad, and that's a barometer of a person's ethics. Religion or no religion, for me it's a very grey area and there's not necessarily a correct moral answer. I am in favour of abortions when it's deemed the only option and definitely in rape cases, but it makes me uncomfortable when people act as if it's a clear cut question. 

I totally agree and I hope I'm not coming across that way, I just began by arguing it wasn't sexist to be anti abortion. 

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, theessexfox said:

I feel like many people act as if the argument about abortion is definitively won - pro-choice = good and pro-life = bad, and that's a barometer of a person's ethics. Religion or no religion, for me it's a very grey area and there's not necessarily a correct moral answer. I am in favour of abortions when it's deemed the only option and definitely in rape cases, but it makes me uncomfortable when people act as if it's a clear cut question. 

Im halfway to thinking this. I suspect they haven't really thought hard from neutral first principles. 

Edited 8 September 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I totally agree and I hope I'm not coming across that way, I just began by arguing it wasn't sexist to be anti abortion. 

Of course it isn't sexist. Taking that view has nothing to do with gender.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

Not giving blood or organs is like walking past someone who is dying on the street and doing nothing to help. Abortion is choosing to not allow something to live, that isn't dying. It's very different.

Hmmmm...but in both cases the human cannot live by themselves and will die without direct outside human help.

 

But yeah, essexfox does raise a point about how thorny the issue is, and is likely it'll never be clear cut. I just take issue with what I perceive to be hypocrisy on the matter and how some folks can and do use it as part of a political tool that seeks to make decisions about women without them having a choice.

[Guest MattP]

17 hours ago, toddybad said:

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.

I regret that statement, in my opinion its naive, ridiculous and dangerous to get rid of our nuclear weapons in the current climate but I shouldn't have called the view repugnant, I apologise and withdraw it.

[Guest MattP]

Yanis with a few more interesting comments on the position we should take.

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4424340/economist-warns-theresa-may-abandon-brexit-negotiations/