Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: JP on June 19, 2017, 10:39:10 AM
-
Tom Holland on Twitter...
Is this our future: cycles of sectarian killing, hatred fuelling hatred? I've rarely felt more depressed about my countries future.
I agree with him.
-
Depends on whether people keep fuelling the hate or not, doesn't it? There are a lot of arseholes in this country but they remain in the minority.
Still, banning the Daily Mail would be a plan. I'm all for freedom of speech in the news press but as the Mail is a purveyor of fake news I don't think that applies.
-
I think the good still outweighs the bad in the UK.
-
I think the good still outweighs the bad in the UK.
I think so too. And by a long long way. The trouble is that the bad is very bad indeed - as we've been reminded yet again ::)
-
As a geographical entity, britain has a very long future. As a political union, I ferevently hope it doesn't.
-
Depends on whether people keep fuelling the hate or not, doesn't it? There are a lot of arseholes in this country but they remain in the minority.
How do you stop people fuelling the hate though. Very difficult, especially as people will define hate very differently.
Still, banning the Daily Mail would be a plan. I'm all for freedom of speech in the news press but as the Mail is a purveyor of fake news I don't think that applies.
If we start banning things there will be a lot to ban. Who decides this and I believe it could damage one of the cornerstones which made this country what it is.
-
I think so too. And by a long long way. The trouble is that the bad is very bad indeed - as we've been reminded yet again ::)
Very bad indeed and when I hear the rhetoric I can see no way out of what is happening.
-
How do you stop people fuelling the hate though. Very difficult, especially as people will define hate very differently.
I wish I knew the answer to that one. How do you get to the radicals-in-waiting and nip the process of radicalisation in the bud? At present the situation seems almost out of control, since either nobody knows how to do anything or knows but isn't doing it for whatever reason.
-
How do you stop people fuelling the hate though. Very difficult, especially as people will define hate very differently.
If we start banning things there will be a lot to ban. Who decides this and I believe it could damage one of the cornerstones which made this country what it is.
We already and have always banned things.
-
We already and have always banned things.
And there are other things we have not banned.
-
And there are other things we have not banned.
And? You said if we started banning things then it would be a removal of a cornerstone that our society was built on. Since we already ban things, and have always banned things your post makes no sense. And your reply here both ignores that and is a non sequitur.
-
And already it is bogged down with pedantry.
-
And already it is bogged down with pedantry.
Yep, why should we care if your statements are logical or correct. So much more fun if you can just be illogical and wrong, isn't it?
-
I never suggested at any point that we have not banned things before.
-
I never suggested at any point that we have not banned things before.
To quote you
'If we start banning things there will be a lot to ban. Who decides this and I believe it could damage one of the cornerstones which made this country what it is.'
-
And?
You need to explain how this suggests nothing has ever been banned in the UK, ever.
-
And?
You need to explain how this suggests nothing has ever been banned in the UK, ever.
Because in order to start banning things and in order to have a cornerstone that isn't about banning things we would not have banned things now or previously. And I note you are ignoring that there ate things currently banned which I pointed out. How can we start banning things if things are already banned?
-
Okay, I'm out.
I know you are intelligent enough to read between the lines, understand what I mean.
Nero fiddled while Rome burned.
-
Okay, I'm out.
I know you are intelligent enough to read between the lines, understand what I mean.
Nero fiddled while Rome burned.
No, I don't know what you mean because what you wrote was illogical. I have no idea why you want someone to guess what you mean rather than clarify it.
-
I find this 'everything is so shit' narrative tedious in the extreme. No it isn't. I grew up in London with the IRA terror threats and skins and the NF and life wasn't shit then, and it isn't now. If anything now is better - far, far more tolerant. And my kids' generation really don't see colour, or religion, or sexuality, they just see people.
-
I find this 'everything is so shit' narrative tedious in the extreme. No it isn't. I grew up in London with the IRA terror threats and skins and the NF and life wasn't shit then, and it isn't now. If anything now is better - far, far more tolerant. And my kids' generation really don't see colour, or religion, or sexuality, they just see people.
And that's the only kind of future worth aiming for and trying to build. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
-
I find this 'everything is so shit' narrative tedious in the extreme. No it isn't. I grew up in London with the IRA terror threats and skins and the NF and life wasn't shit then, and it isn't now. If anything now is better - far, far more tolerant. And my kids' generation really don't see colour, or religion, or sexuality, they just see people.
Indeed, given that it was I presume the historian Tom Holland in the OP who was tweeting, it feels as if there is a lack of perspective. That said I think we need to be careful about being aware of the facts of history doesn't lead to people feeling as if their experience of now is being ignored.
-
I don't think we can get away from the now being hard and scary, genuinely for some. I don't buy the idea that we are screwed though. Far from it.
-
I don't think we can get away from the now being hard and scary, genuinely for some. I don't buy the idea that we are screwed though. Far from it.
With you on that. And as ever I think things feel scarier because of the change in how news is reported and ever present.
Given this happened in Corbyn's constituency, would like to see May and Corbyn visit the mosque together, possibly to celebrate the end of Ramadan accompanied by the ABoC, the Chief Rabbi, Dicky Dawkins, Owlswing, a random Royal. Old Uncle Tom Cobbley et al (particularly al) to join in a rendition of Knees Up Mother Brown
-
I'll be disappointed if this doesn't happen. The chorus needs to be led by Dame Babs Windsor.
-
I'm picturing Vlad on spoons
-
Okay, I'm out.
I know you are intelligent enough to read between the lines, understand what I mean.
Nero fiddled while Rome burned.
Don't worry, JP, I got the gist of what you were saying. It seems to me that banning things/people/organizations etc. should be done with the utmost care and consideration of the consequences. As far as Rhi's comment about banning the Daily Mail goes, I assumed it was tongue in cheek, at least I hope it was, as I regard the freedom of the press, however much we disagree with it, as a cornerstone of democracy, and it would have to be something very extreme indeed, which would convince me that banning was an appropriate action.
On the subject of your opening post, I don't think that I agree with you or Tom Holland. Having lived through the end of the Second World War, the IRA bombings in mainland UK, and seen from a distance the sectarian violence in NI, I don't think the present terrorist/sectarian troubles reflect fairly on the reasonable and caring attitude of most people in these islands. It seems to me that not just us, but many countries, are going through a phase where such hatred and violence is to the fore. Who knows what life will be like in the UK(with or without an independent Scotland) in 30 years time?
-
NS,
And? You said if we started banning things then it would be a removal of a cornerstone that our society was built on. Since we already ban things, and have always banned things your post makes no sense. And your reply here both ignores that and is a non sequitur.
Rather than go straight for the jugular would it not be more conducive to the discussion if instead you said something like: “We have always banned some things, so presumably you’re thinking here of a cornerstone of things that absolutely should not be banned, or that would cause more harm than good if they were banned”?
As for the OP, I suppose my response wold be along the lines of, "Yes, it's bloody awful but consider too the astonishing outpouring of warmth and practical help from the ground up despite the inadequacies of the top down infrastructure. That to me is modern Britain in action, and it's something to be proud of."
-
Don't worry, JP, I got the gist of what you were saying. It seems to me that banning things/people/organizations etc. should be done with the utmost care and consideration of the consequences. As far as Rhi's comment about banning the Daily Mail goes, I assumed it was tongue in cheek, at least I hope it was, as I regard the freedom of the press, however much we disagree with it, as a cornerstone of democracy, and it would have to be something very extreme indeed, which would convince me that banning was an appropriate action.
On the subject of your opening post, I don't think that I agree with you or Tom Holland. Having lived through the end of the Second World War, the IRA bombings in mainland UK, and seen from a distance the sectarian violence in NI, I don't think the present terrorist/sectarian troubles reflect fairly on the reasonable and caring attitude of most people in these islands. It seems to me that not just us, but many countries, are going through a phase where such hatred and violence is to the fore. Who knows what life will be like in the UK(with or without an independent Scotland) in 30 years time?
I see you were willing to guess. The freedom of the press isn't an absolute and lots of stuff is already banned, so how is it a cornerstone and how would be starting to ban stuff when lots already is? Ever heard of a D Notice or a super injunction (never mind hate speech or libel)?
-
My understanding is that a D notice is a polite request, not a legally enforceable order, so not really any threat to press freedom.
-
My understanding is that a D notice is a polite request, not a legally enforceable order.
I think polite is polite, but they are in general obeyed. That they don't need to be enforceable doesn't show that the idea that we have a free press is incorrect.
-
NS,
Rather than go straight for the jugular would it not be more conducive to the discussion if instead you said something like: “We have always banned some things, so presumably you’re thinking here of a cornerstone of things that absolutely should not be banned, or that would cause more harm than good if they were banned”?
As for the OP, I suppose my response wold be along the lines of, "Yes, it's bloody awful but consider too the astonishing outpouring of warmth and practical help from the ground up despite the inadequacies of the top down infrastructure. That to me is modern Britain in action, and it's something to be proud of."
Go for the jugular? By saying there are things that have always been banned? How is pointing out a simple fact going for the jugular?
-
NS,
Go for the jugular? By saying there are things that have always been banned? How is pointing out a simple fact going for the jugular?
With posts like this:
And? You said if we started banning things then it would be a removal of a cornerstone that our society was built on. Since we already ban things, and have always banned things your post makes no sense. And your reply here both ignores that and is a non sequitur.
There are more productive ways of teasing out the thinking of others, and I see that JP abandoned ship in response.
Was that your intention?
-
Part of what makes this country what it is (was), the cornerstone, is the freedom to express opinion, to criticise and question, to disagree, to mock. It has been fundamental in shaping this country.
This is very much under threat.
-
NS,
With posts like this:
There are more productive ways of teasing out the thinking of others, and I see that JP abandoned ship in response.
Was that your intention?
Challenging an incorrect and illogical statement? Yes. Do you think that is wrong?
-
Part of what makes this country what it is (was), the cornerstone, is the freedom to express opinion, to criticise and question, to disagree, to mock. It has been fundamental in shaping this country.
This is very much under threat.
Could you lay out a case for why you think this by showing how freedom of speech has changed over time?
-
Could you lay out a case for why you think this by showing how freedom of speech has changed over time?
Not for you.
-
I see you were willing to guess. The freedom of the press isn't an absolute and lots of stuff is already banned, so how is it a cornerstone and how would be starting to ban stuff when lots already is? Ever heard of a D Notice or a super injunction (never mind hate speech or libel)?
Don't know about guessing, just expressing an opinion, as none of us know the future. Never said that freedom of the press was an absolute. Happily agree that all sorts of things are banned(e.g. certain dog breeds). Never mentioned anything about the idea of 'starting to ban stuff when lots already is', that's between you and JP. Of course I've heard of D notices(which are requests) and super injunctions. neither of which alters anything that I have said in the first paragraph.
-
Not for you.
Diddums!
-
Don't know about guessing, just expressing an opinion, as none of us know the future. Never said that freedom of the press was an absolute. Happily agree that all sorts of things are banned(e.g. certain dog breeds). Never mentioned anything about the idea of 'starting to ban stuff when lots already is', that's between you and JP. Of course I've heard of D notices(which are requests) and super injunctions. neither of which alters anything that I have said in the first paragraph.
So what do you think the 'cornerstone' is that would be effected by banning things and how?
-
Part of what makes this country what it is (was), the cornerstone, is the freedom to express opinion, to criticise and question, to disagree, to mock. It has been fundamental in shaping this country.
This is very much under threat.
Have you read Yahoo News?
-
A cornerstone of our way of life is meant to be democracy, but the DM and its fake news undermines our democratic process (see Brexit). Which is more important, the right to know what you are voting for or the right to make up shit?
-
So what do you think the 'cornerstone' is that would be effected by banning things and how?
Well, I would suggest that any government banning a newspaper, such as the the Daily Mail(which was the original contention) or the Mirror, for instance, would lead to much greater division in society, and would lead to increased hostile reactions on behalf of those who supported the political beliefs held by said newspapers. It seems to me that most dictatorial regimes either do not allow freedom of the press or control the output of the press in only allowing 'positive' stories to surface, and, whichever government was foolish enough to implement this, would lay themselves open to charges of being strongly anti-democratic. The basic ideal of the freedom of the Press is widely regarded as one of the important foundations of a democracy, in my opinion.
If one looks back at the banning of television and radio broadcasts by a range of Loyalist and Irish Republican groups between 1988 and 1994, it seems to me that this, on the whole, had deleterious (and sometimes even comical) effects. In my opinion no such bans should have been implemented.
-
But as I've just said the DM subverts democracy. It doesn't publish news, it publishes fake news. The people that read it do so because this is the kind of news they want so you can't expect regulation on the part of its readership. They want to hear that it's all the fault of immigrants/Muslims/brown people, or that coffee/bacon/anoraks give you cancer.
What part does it play in a healthy democratic society?
-
Well, I would suggest that any government banning a newspaper, such as the the Daily Mail(which was the original contention) or the Mirror, for instance, would lead to much greater division in society, and would lead to increased hostile reactions on behalf of those who supported the political beliefs held by said newspapers. It seems to me that most dictatorial regimes either do not allow freedom of the press or control the output of the press in only allowing 'positive' stories to surface, and, whichever government was foolish enough to implement this, would lay themselves open to charges of being strongly anti-democratic. The basic ideal of the freedom of the Press is widely regarded as one of the important foundations of a democracy, in my opinion.
If one looks back at the banning of television and radio broadcasts by a range of Loyalist and Irish Republican groups between 1988 and 1994, it seems to me that this, on the whole, had deleterious (and sometimes even comical) effects. In my opinion no such bans should have been implemented.
So the original cornerstone is in your opinion publishing a newspaper, so could I publish the Paedophile Clarion? Including all the kids that need a good seeing to? How about The Bad Yid News with those Jews that need corrected? Maybe the Nigger Mirror, when you need to know who should be enslaved?
The freedom of the press is a hugely complex topic and not one that I think boils down to the idea that we haven't banned things as a cornerstone of whatever it is we do. The history of the press is a history of being banned not of being free.
-
NS,
Challenging an incorrect and illogical statement? Yes. Do you think that is wrong?
Challenging is fine - it was the way you go about it that I was questioning. It's up to you of course, but I find that challenging with a little empathy thrown in tends to be more fruitful than challenging with none.
-
NS,
Challenging is fine - it was the way you go about it that I was questioning. It's up to you of course, but I find that challenging with a little empathy thrown in tends to be more fruitful than challenging with none.
So you think that pointing out illogicality and incorrectness isn't showing empathy. OK, so how do you challenge in a way that shows empathy? I am interested to learn from previous approaches you might have used here that you think worthy of repetition.
-
If someone's posting style pisses me off it's up to me if I want to engage with that or not. This is a forum for grown ups, not snowflakes, abuse aside we are all responsible as individuals for what we do or don't get out of it. I've flounced as much as anyone. My fault, no-one else's.
Anyway.
Knees up muvver braahnn, knees up muvver braahhnn...
-
Rhi,
But as I've just said the DM subverts democracy. It doesn't publish news, it publishes fake news. The people that read it do so because this is the kind of news they want so you can't expect regulation on the part of its readership. They want to hear that it's all the fault of immigrants/Muslims/brown people, or that coffee/bacon/anoraks give you cancer.
What part does it play in a healthy democratic society?
Very little - it's pretty much anathema to that. But here you're describing the liberal paradox - if you believe in freedom of speech, then on what basis would you deny it to others, however filthy, bigoted, dishonest etc they might be? The moment you say "ban it!" you weaken the very thing you seek to protect. If the DM, why not The Daily Express? And if the Express, why not The Sun etc?
And if nonetheless an authoritarian gov't gets in and says, "Ban the Guardian" what defence would you have?
That's why banning even some freedom of speech is so problematic - the classic example being that you can't run into a crowded theatre and shout "Fire!" because real people are likely to be hurt that way. But next we have phrases like "likely to incite violence" etc. Likely according to whom, and where should that line be drawn?
Just look at Theresa May now and the heavy hints about increasing the Gov't's right to look at private e-mails under the guise or reducing terrorist threats. Do you really think Trump wouldn't close down CNN or The New York Times if he had the power to do it?
That's the irony - that when you trade privacy for security eventually you deserve neither.
-
Rhi,
Very little - it's pretty much anathema to that. But here you're describing the liberal paradox - if you believe in freedom of speech, then on what basis would you deny it to others, however filthy, bigoted, dishonest etc they might be? The moment you say "ban it!" you weaken the very thing you seek to protect. If the DM, why not The Daily Express? And if the Express, why not The Sun etc?
And if nonetheless, an authoritarian gov't gets in and says, "Ban the Guardian" what defence would you have?
That's why banning even some free speech is so problematic - the classic example being that you can't run into a crowded theatre and shout "Fire!" because real people are likely to be hurt that way. hen we have phrases like "likely to incite violence" etc. Likely according to whom, and where should that line be drawn?
Just look at Theresa May now and the heavy hints about increasing the Gov'ts right to look at private e-mails under the guise or reducing terrorist threats. That's the irony - that when you trade privacy for security eventually you deserve neither.
I haven't mentioned privacy. I want the press to be at least vaguely honest. Because if they aren't, what we get is fake news being believed, and that interferes with democracy - hence our independent judiciary being called the enemies of the people. Where do you think that will lead?
-
NS,
So you think that pointing out illogicality and incorrectness isn't showing empathy. OK, so how do you challenge in a way that shows empathy? I am interested to learn from previous approaches you might have used here that you think worthy of repetition.
Why are you misrepresenting what I said? It's not the fact of challenge, but rather the "you're a fucking idiot" approach vs the "let's try to understand the argument here a bit better" line.
Like I said though, it's not for me to tell you how to behave. Possibly JP would have had some interesting responses to having his position held up to the light, but I guess we'll never know now.
-
Rhi,
I haven't mentioned privacy. I want the press to be at least vaguely honest. Because if they aren't, what we get is fake news being believed, and that interferes with democracy - hence our independent judiciary being called the enemies of the people. Where do you think that will lead?
Privacy specifically is another aspect of freedom of speech. I want our press to be honest too, but when you advocate banning publications that you think not to be you're on a very slippery slope. Doubtless Trump would argue that CNN and the New York Times are not honest too.
Then what?
-
Rhi,
Privacy specifically is another aspect of freedom of speech. I want our press to be honest too, but when you advocate banning publications that you think not to be you're on a very slippery slope. Doubtless Trump would argue that CNN and the New York Times are not honest too.
Then what?
I don't know if publications should be banned or not - banning the DM was a throwaway comment. But there is no doubt that it stokes the flames and purveys the very poison that we want to see removed from our society - it isn't a newspaper. So if you don't ban it, how do you stop it lying?
-
NS,
Why are you misrepresenting what I said? It's not the fact of challenge, but rather the "you're a fucking idiot" approach vs the "let's try to understand the argument here a bit better" line.
Like I said though, it's not for me to tell you how to behave. Possibly JP would have had some interesting responses to having his position held up to the light, but I guess we'll never know now.
Did I say 'you're a fucking idiot'? And you want to talk about misrepresentation?
-
NS,
Did I say 'you're a fucking idiot'?
No, and nor did I accuse you of doing so. What I said was the "you're a fucking idiot" approach.
And you want to talk about misrepresentation?
Yes, and you just did it again.
-
So the original cornerstone is in your opinion publishing a newspaper, so could I publish the Paedophile Clarion? Including all the kids that need a good seeing to? How about The Bad Yid News with those Jews that need corrected? Maybe the Nigger Mirror, when you need to know who should be enslaved?
The freedom of the press is a hugely complex topic and not one that I think boils down to the idea that we haven't banned things as a cornerstone of whatever it is we do. The history of the press is a history of being banned not of being free.
I doubt it, Nearly. I would not condone any of the above as I have made perfectly clear in post 26, by saying:
"I regard the freedom of the press, however much we disagree with it, as a cornerstone of democracy, and it would have to be something very extreme indeed, which would convince me that banning was an appropriate action."
All you have done is give a series of very extreme examples. Incidentally, I wonder if Swift's 'A Modest Proposal' would sit happily in their midst.
It is my opinion that the freedom of the press is simply an extension of free speech, and, if there are extreme examples, such as the ones you enumerate, then each individual one needs to be looked at, and a judgement as to whether action is taken, and this may well include banning, according to the law of the land.
Of course the freedom of the press is a hugely complex topic. That is why I did not take seriously the suggestion that we simply ban the Daily Mail. I have not said that we haven't banned things whilst still regarding free speech(and its extension, the right to print) as a cornerstone of our democracy. It seems to me the history of the press includes both the right to free speech and the right to be curtailed. That, for me, is part of the complexity that you refer to.
-
NS,
No, and nor did I accuse you of doing so. What I said was the "you're a fucking idiot" approach.
Yes, and you just did it again.
So you just assert that someone is using the 'you're a fucking idiot' approach in your opinion, (whatever it is you mean) and even though all they have done is point out illogicalities and incorrectness, that is some how bad because someone might think that doing so isn't showing empathy? So of I were to say your posts show a 'I want to shag four year olds' approach despite none of your posts saying that I would be justified?
-
Rhi,
I don't know if publications should be banned or not - banning the DM was a throwaway comment. But there is no doubt that it stokes the flames and purveys the very poison that we want to see removed from our society - it isn't a newspaper. So if you don't ban it, how do you stop it lying?
But should you "stop it"? You might remember holocaust denier David Irving's books being banned in Austria and Germany (from memory) but not in the UK or elsewhere. Austria and Germany is perhaps understandable, but the fact that they were published means that Deborah Lisptadt was able to expose him for a fraud but falsifying his claims. What if instead his books had just been banned everywhere? The conspiracy theorists have a field day, the books acquire cult status etc.
No, sometimes you need the light of public scrutiny for the disinfectant to work.
-
I doubt it, Nearly. I would not condone any of the above as I have made perfectly clear in post 26, by saying:
"I regard the freedom of the press, however much we disagree with it, as a cornerstone of democracy, and it would have to be something very extreme indeed, which would convince me that banning was an appropriate action."
All you have done is give a series of very extreme examples. Incidentally, I wonder if Swift's 'A Modest Proposal' would sit happily in their midst.
It is my opinion that the freedom of the press is simply an extension of free speech, and, if there are extreme examples, such as the ones you enumerate, then each individual one needs to be looked at, and a judgement as to whether action is taken, and this may well include banning, according to the law of the land.
Of course the freedom of the press is a hugely complex topic. That is why I did not take seriously the suggestion that we simply ban the Daily Mail. I have not said that we haven't banned things whilst still regarding free speech(and its extension, the right to print) as a cornerstone of our democracy. It seems to me the history of the press includes both the right to free speech and the right to be curtailed. That, for me, is part of the complexity that you refer to.
Surely this is merely the long known issue with liberalism and freedom. Mill wrote some rather good stuff on this iirc. I don't see how using a reductio isn't asking someone to justify their position, indeed it's rather the point to me.
-
Rhi,
But should you "stop it"? You might remember holocaust denier David Irving's books being banned in Austria and Germany (from memory) but not in the UK or elsewhere. Austria and Germany is perhaps understandable, but the fact that they were published means that Deborah Lisptadt was able to expose him for a fraud but falsifying his claims. What if instead his books had just been banned everywhere? The conspiracy theorists have a field day, the books acquire cult status etc.
No, sometimes you need the light of public scrutiny for the disinfectant to work.
Being able to stop for infringement of laws by scrutiny such as either Holocaust denial or libel is stopping it. The DM could be put out of business with a certain regulatory structure and many theoretical newspapers have had and have this done.
-
If someone's posting style pisses me off it's up to me if I want to engage with that or not. This is a forum for grown ups, not snowflakes, abuse aside we are all responsible as individuals for what we do or don't get out of it. I've flounced as much as anyone. My fault, no-one else's.
Anyway.
Knees up muvver braahnn, knees up muvver braahhnn...
Muppets
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZJHoO11zNI
-
Surely this is merely the long known issue with liberalism and freedom. Mill wrote some rather good stuff on this iirc. I don't see how using a reductio isn't asking someone to justify their position, indeed it's rather the point to me.
Nothing to disagree with you, here, Nearly. As to your last sentence, if I had said that the freedom of the press should prevail at all costs, then your reductio might have had some point. However, as I didn't say that, then I have no need to justify my position on those grounds. ;D
-
NS,
So you just assert that someone is using the 'you're a fucking idiot' approach in your opinion, (whatever it is you mean) and even though all they have done is point out illogicalities and incorrectness, that is some how bad because someone might think that doing so isn't showing empathy?
Wow – that’s a lot or misrepresentations in one sentence.
First - again - I wasn’t talking about what you said but rather about the way that you said it. Do you genuinely not understand the difference?
Second, “whatever it is I mean” is exactly what I said I meant – an approach rather than a specific quote. Why then haven’t you withdrawn the accusation of misrepresenting you?
Third, it’s not “bad” because you have no empathy but rather that it’s counter-productive if you’re interested in having a discussion, as indeed JP’s response showed. I’m not saying that I agree or disagree with him – just that sometimes your approach can feel like your interlocutor has been stabbed in the face rather than asked to explain himself.
So of I were to say your posts show a 'I want to shag four year olds' approach despite none of your posts saying that I would be justified?
Well that’s bizarre. Again, you’re confusing content with style. If I had intended to say that, then I would have had to have said it specifically. You couldn’t just have inferred it.
Look it’s none of my business how you treat people but I do think that if you want to encourage free discussion here some approaches are likely to be less successful than others.
It’s up to you though.
-
NS,
Wow – that’s a lot or misrepresentations in one sentence.
First - again - I wasn’t talking about what you said but rather about the way that you said it. Do you genuinely not understand the difference?
Second, “whatever it is I mean” is exactly what I said I meant – an approach rather than a specific quote. Why then haven’t you withdrawn the accusation of misrepresenting you?
Third, it’s not “bad” because you have no empathy but rather that it’s counter-productive if you’re interested in having a discussion, as indeed JP’s response showed. I’m not saying that I agree or disagree with him – just that sometimes your approach can feel like your interlocutor has been stabbed in the face rather than asked to explain himself.
Well that’s bizarre. Again, you’re confusing content with style. If I had intended to say that, then I would have had to have said it specifically. You couldn’t just have inferred it.
Look it’s none of my business how you treat people but I do think that if you want to encourage free discussion here some approaches are likely to be less successful than others.
It’s up to you though.
Since your 'first' is in direct contradiction to what was written, it makes of difficult to understand what your issue is.
Your second given you are talking about an approach which isn't based on what is written is obviously something you mean by that. How is it odd pointing out that your interpretation of something, which you have given a title, is whatever you mean by that title and not an objective fact?
Third, I see you begging the question as to whether I have no empathy by assuming it in your statement. I fear I might back up your subjective opinion by pointing out the use of the fallacy since you seem to think that to do so is showing no empathy, but then since it is just an example of your circular reasoning, I don't care.
As to your point about 'inferring' maybe you missed the question mark, but leaving that aside are you honestly saying that everything you mean to say you say explicitly and you never imply anything?
-
NS,
Being able to stop for infringement of laws by scrutiny such as either Holocaust denial or libel is stopping it. The DM could be put out of business with a certain regulatory structure and many theoretical newspapers have had and have this done.
That’s not what happened. Lipstadt published her book “Denying the Holocaust” and Irving sued her and Penguin Books for libel. He lost because the court decided that Lipstadt’s claim that he had deliberately distorted evidence was substantially true.
Thus Lipstadt’s book wasn’t stopped and nor were Irving’s books, but the latter were discredited in a court of law.
And that was my point – better in my view to allow publication and then to falsify than to drive underground with all that tends to entail.
And yes the DM could be put out of business, and in fact there’s a good argument I think that some recent newspaper headlines do cross the line into incitement. As the targets were Muslims though, there seems to be little public appetite for doing anything about it.
-
NS,
That’s not what happened. Lipstadt published her book “Denying the Holocaust” and Irving sued her and Penguin Books for libel. He lost because the court decided that Lipstadt’s claim that he had deliberately distorted evidence was substantially true.
Thus Lipstadt’s book wasn’t stopped and nor were Irving’s books, but the latter were discredited in a court of law.
And that was my point – better in my view to allow publication and then to falsify than to drive underground with all that tends to entail.
And yes the DM could be put out of business, and in fact there’s a good argument I think that some recent newspaper headlines do cross the line into incitement. As the targets were Muslims though, there seems to be little public appetite for doing anything about it.
If something is banned by cost, then it is banned. The idea that there is a difference between post facto prosecution and it being a categorical post facto ban is sophistry. Irving could be published in Germany, it's just that the post facto costs would either in monetary or prison terms are such that makes it unlikely.
-
NS,
Since your 'first' is in direct contradiction to what was written, it makes of difficult to understand what your issue is.
No it isn't. I merely point out that content and style are different things, even though you keep trying to conflate them.
Your second given you are talking about an approach which isn't based on what is written is obviously something you mean by that. How is it odd pointing out that your interpretation of something, which you have given a title, is whatever you mean by that title and not an objective fact?
It's odd because no-one has said that being made to feel "you're a fucking idiot" is an objective fact. Thats just your straw man. The only objective fact is that some people are turned off enough by your approach to exit the conversation. Whether or not you feel they shoudl be is another matter.
Third, I see you begging the question as to whether I have no empathy by assuming it in your statement. I fear I might back up your subjective opinion by pointing out the use of the fallacy since you seem to think that to do so is showing no empathy, but then since it is just an example of your circular reasoning, I don't care.
Again, a straw man. The only point I'm making is that people do get pissed off by your approach. I make no statement about whether or not they're right to - just that they do.
As to your point about 'inferring' maybe you missed the question mark, but leaving that aside are you honestly saying that everything you mean to say you say explicitly and you never imply anything?
That's three straw men in one post. Are you after Vlad's Fallacy Top Trumps crown or something?
The difference is that someone like JP could readily infer an unnecessarily combative style from you posts that repelled him. What no-one could infer though was content, whether about four-year-olds or anything else.
I really don't know why were having this spat. As a mod here I'd have thought you'd want to encourage as many people as possible to join in, and your sterling efforts to start new discussions suggest that I'm right about that. I merely suggest that you're style of posting sometime has pretty much the opposite effect.
No more, no less.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have some charcoal to light and some mushrooms to stuff.
-
NS,
If something is banned by cost, then it is banned.
That’s plainly nonsense. If I have a novel published and it sells three copies so the publisher withdraws it, no-one has “banned” it. It’s just been commercially unsuccessful.
To be banned something has to be proscribed, generally by a body with the authority to enforce it – eg, through the courts.
The idea that there is a difference between post facto prosecution and it being a categorical post facto ban is sophistry.
Of course it isn’t. Irving’s books weren’t “banned” – they just stopped selling and so went out of print. If I was rich enough and daft enough and could acquire the rights, I could re-publish them myself if I wanted to and no-one would stop me. There is no ban – just commercial disinterest.
Irving could be published in Germany…
No he couldn’t – from memory either Germany or Austria (or both) did ban his books because Holocaust denial is (or was at least) a crime. I seem to recall that he was arrested when he went to one of them too.
…,it's just that the post facto costs would either in monetary or prison terms are such that makes it unlikely.
Why would he go to prison if there was no ban?
-
NS,
No it isn't. I merely point out that content and style are different things, even though you keep trying to conflate them.
No, I don't. That would be you by suggesting a style is somehow consistent with pointing out an illogicality and an incorrectness.
It's odd because no-one has said that being made to feel "you're a fucking idiot" is an objective fact. Thats just your straw man. The only objective fact is that some people are turned off enough by your approach to exit the conversation. Whether or not you feel they should be is another matter.
And another misrepresentation. I said you were presenting it as a fact that that was the style. I am sure some people might be turned off by my approach, or by any approach. Given that any approach might turn some people off it's a hazard of posting
Again, a straw man. The only point I'm making is that people do get pissed off by your approach. I make no statement about whether or not they're right to - just that they do.
which is a truism about posting so what's the use of it
That's three straw men in one post. Are you after Vlad's Fallacy Top Trumps crown or something?
Assertion an an ad hom based on that.
The difference is that someone like JP could readily infer an unnecessarily combative style from you posts that repelled him. What no-one could infer though was content, whether about four-year-olds or anything else.
You don't really understand inference. Anyone can infer anything. How do you infer something is unnecessary for example?
I really don't know why were having this spat. As a mod here I'd have thought you'd want to encourage as many people as possible to join in, and your sterling efforts to start new discussions suggest that I'm right about that. I merely suggest that you're style of posting sometime has pretty much the opposite effect.
No more, no less.
Again this is a truism. Unless you actually think that I shouldn't post it's not a useful observation.
-
Do people really get depressed about these incidents? I drove past Grenfell Tower on Sunday, and it is a big shock to see it, and it raises lots of questions, but I don't feel depressed, nor about terrorism. I don't really get that, but people are different. Maybe they are not really depressed, but something else?
-
Do people really get depressed about these incidents? I drove past Grenfell Tower on Sunday, and it is a big shock to see it, and it raises lots of questions, but I don't feel depressed, nor about terrorism. I don't really get that, but people are different. Maybe they are not really depressed, but something else?
So much awfulness in such a short space of time is a bit wearing to say the least, surely?
-
So much awfulness in such a short space of time is a bit wearing to say the least, surely?
Yes, that's true. I suppose it depends on one's personality. I'm just wondering if Tom Holland is seriously depressed about terrorism, but maybe he is. Maybe I am weird in not being.
-
No - you feel however you feel.
But whether through deliberate malice or tragic accident, the loss of so much life so relatively quickly is troubling. I admit that, not liking hot weather, I may be gloomier than usual on that account.
-
Yes, that's true. I suppose it depends on one's personality. I'm just wondering if Tom Holland is seriously depressed about terrorism, but maybe he is. Maybe I am weird in not being.
I'm not either. It has left me like that in the past. Not now. Like you I feel all kinds of things and have shed tears, but I don't feel depressed, or hopeless, or hate. Maybe it's because my own life has more good in it than bad right now, selfish though that might be.
-
It made me think of my grandad, who was a POW in a German saltmine in WWI, and he told me he didn't get depressed. I guess it's not a rational process.
-
So you think that pointing out illogicality and incorrectness isn't showing empathy. OK, so how do you challenge in a way that shows empathy? I am interested to learn from previous approaches you might have used here that you think worthy of repetition.
I think you took a pedantic point far beyond what was needed. Everybody knows what people mean when they say "I hope we are not going to start banning things" or similar. But you had to focus on the literal meaning of JP's comment. I hope you feel like a big man for having driven him away - at least briefly.
The thing that worries me most is what freedoms the government is going to start encroaching as a response to these acts. For instance, we know Theresa May wants to significantly reduce the openness of the Internet and we know she wants to deny us the right to privacy in our communications by denying us proper encryption. I'm actually surprised nobody has mooted the compulsory carrying of identity cards yet.
-
I'm not either. It has left me like that in the past. Not now. Like you I feel all kinds of things and have shed tears, but I don't feel depressed, or hopeless, or hate. Maybe it's because my own life has more good in it than bad right now, selfish though that might be.
I don't think it's selfish. Many people have a sort of core of good feelings, and that remains, even in bad times.
-
I'm actually surprised nobody has mooted the compulsory carrying of identity cards yet.
A few years back it was, of course.
Luckily it was defeated; but in the current climate if it was floated again I'd put money on it being passed.
-
A few years back it was, of course.
Luckily it was defeated; but in the current climate if it was floated again I'd put money on it being passed.
I agree, which is the kind of thing that depresses me (although not clinically since we are all being so precise on this thread). I can't see any way to stop the current cycle of violence. Anybody can get in a van and drive it into a crowd of people they don't like. If only oner person in a million can't see the sense of not doing this sort of thing, that's 60 people in the UK prepared to commit such acts of violence.
-
Why is it being precise? Tom Holland says 'I've rarely been so depressed about the future of this country'. I did ask if he means something different from depression, but I assume he does mean that.
-
I don't think it's selfish. Many people have a sort of core of good feelings, and that remains, even in bad times.
One thing I know from having both reactions is that I feel it's a better way of honouring those that have died to live as fully as possible.
-
I agree, which is the kind of thing that depresses me (although not clinically since we are all being so precise on this thread). I can't see any way to stop the current cycle of violence. Anybody can get in a van and drive it into a crowd of people they don't like. If only oner person in a million can't see the sense of not doing this sort of thing, that's 60 people in the UK prepared to commit such acts of violence.
But they won't all do it.
Experts are already talking of 'jihad fatigue'. It will take a while, but then it will be in the past.
-
I hope so Rhiannon, have thought the same. Things do pass.
-
I think you took a pedantic point far beyond what was needed. Everybody knows what people mean when they say "I hope we are not going to start banning things" or similar. But you had to focus on the literal meaning of JP's comment. I hope you feel like a big man for having driven him away - at least briefly.
The thing that worries me most is what freedoms the government is going to start encroaching as a response to these acts. For instance, we know Theresa May wants to significantly reduce the openness of the Internet and we know she wants to deny us the right to privacy in our communications by denying us proper encryption. I'm actually surprised nobody has mooted the compulsory carrying of identity cards yet.
Ah, you know what everybody thinks? That's nice. And no I don't know what people mean by certain expressions or similar and I wonder whether arguing that something is a cornerstone when it makes no logical sense is useful. Do you think stating something that makes no logical sense is useful?
-
Tom Holland on Twitter...
Is this our future: cycles of sectarian killing, hatred fuelling hatred? I've rarely felt more depressed about my countries future.
I agree with him.
Tell me what reason the terrorist have to hate us or our country?
If they don't like us they don't have to live here and kill our children.
But he and many others are really about attention and not about reality are they?
You cannot put lions in amongst the lambs and expect them not to kill.
-
I agree with him.
Tell me what reason the terrorist have to hate us or our country?
A great many think that the secular, liberal, pluralist values by which Western nations abide are degenerate, decadent, hedonistic, blasphemous, weak and anti-Muslim.
If they don't like us they don't have to live here and kill our children.
Which assumes, in the teeth of abundant evidence, that terrorists are alien, foreign, the other, from outside. In fact most of the recent high-profile cases involved British-born perpetrators.
Manchester: British terrorist.
Westminster Bridge: British terrorist.
Finsbury Park: British terrorist.
Terrorists aren't always 'they'; often they're 'we'. Given that Khalid Masood, the Westminster attacker, was a man originally called Adrian, Kent-born and from Tonbridge Wells, I suggest your Sun reader "send them all back where they came from" rhetoric needs more work to put it mildly.
-
Actually its not about the physical origins of a person...but the mental attitude and who or what the person identifies with. His sense of belonging.
As an example, in India we have lived with Muslims for 1000 years ever since the first invasion and plunder by Muhammad of Ghazni around 1000 CE. Most Muslims in India are Hindu converts over the centuries....but many of them even today have greater allegiance with Pakistan than with India. Whether it is about war or Line of Control skirmishes or Pakistan sponsored terrorism or even cricket, it is the same. This is a problem we continue to face almost on a day to day basis.
It is a fact that many Muslims (not all, I agree) tend to identify with Islam, Mecca and Islamic states rather than the country of their residence or origins. Why this is so can be analysed separately but the fact cannot be denied.
It is not about religion at all. In India in particular we Hindus don't give a hoot what or who anyone worships. They are welcome to worship anyone as long as they integrate with the majority folks in other matters....which they usually don't.
So, this problem of integration with Muslims is a real issue and is not likely to go away as easily as some of you might think.
-
Tell me what reason the terrorist have to hate us or our country?
God hates sin, so I've heard it said. So if you see western values as degenerate and sinful it's not that much of a stretch
to convince yourself that your hatred is in line with god's hatred and your actions are the carrying out of god's will.
If they don't like us they don't have to live here and kill our children.
1/ Terrorism is a global problem,
2/ Most terrorists are home grown rather than foreigners that are here temporarily on some basis, either legal or illegal. Upping sticks and emigrating because they don't like life here may not be a simple option as you make it sound.
-
Actually its not about the physical origins of a person...but the mental attitude and who or what the person identifies with. His sense of belonging.
As an example, in India we have lived with Muslims for 1000 years ever since the first invasion and plunder by Muhammad of Ghazni around 1000 CE. Most Muslims in India are Hindu converts over the centuries....but many of them even today have greater allegiance with Pakistan than with India. Whether it is about war or Line of Control skirmishes or Pakistan sponsored terrorism or even cricket, it is the same. This is a problem we continue to face almost on a day to day basis.
It is a fact that many Muslims (not all, I agree) tend to identify with Islam, Mecca and Islamic states rather than the country of their residence or origins. Why this is so can be analysed separately but the fact cannot be denied.
It is not about religion at all. In India in particular we Hindus don't give a hoot what or who anyone worships. They are welcome to worship anyone as long as they integrate with the majority folks in other matters....which they usually don't.
So, this problem of integration with Muslims is a real issue and is not likely to go away as easily as some of you might think.
And the Finsbury Park mosque terrorist?
And the terrorist who killed Jo Cox?
-
A great many think that the secular, liberal, pluralist values by which Western nations abide are degenerate, decadent, hedonistic, blasphemous, weak and anti-Muslim.Which assumes, in the teeth of abundant evidence, that terrorists are alien, foreign, the other, from outside. In fact most of the recent high-profile cases involved British-born perpetrators.
Manchester: British terrorist.
Westminster Bridge: British terrorist.
Finsbury Park: British terrorist.
Terrorists aren't always 'they'; often they're 'we'. Given that Khalid Masood, the Westminster attacker, was a man originally called Adrian, Kent-born and from Tonbridge Wells, I suggest your Sun reader "send them all back where they came from" rhetoric needs more work to put it mildly.
Agree with all that - plus bombing other countries in a fairly indiscriminate manner, and supporting regimes that bomb other countries in a totally indiscriminate manner doesn't help stop the feeling that the West and ourselves in particular don't give a damn about 'the other'.
-
Sass
The UK is not an Islamic State YET ?!!?
Muslims' primary allegiance is to Islam on all levels which is why they have to have halaal butchers here even though ordinarily they would be banned as draining an animal of its blood while it's still breathing is NOT ON in 'our' rules ?!?!!?
-
Sass
The UK is not an Islamic State YET ?!!?
Any good reason to think that it would be?
Muslims' primary allegiance is to Islam on all levels which is why they have to have halaal butchers here even though ordinarily they would be banned as draining an animal of its blood while it's still breathing is NOT ON in 'our' rules ?!?!!?
I quite agree with the point about animal cruelty being illegal in normal circumstances yet allowed without let or hindrance as soon as it's part of somebody's religion: but the existence of halal butchery is a poor example of primary allegiance being elsewhere. Jews also have kosher butchery - pretty well identical to halal, essentially - and as far as I'm aware nobody has ever used that as a rationale for claiming that Jews have no allegiance to Britain and British values. This seems as ridiculous as saying that vegetarians have no allegiance to the same because there are vegetarian shops and restaurants.
-
I've never yet heard a Christian say that they put country ahead of God. For anyone of any faith, their god comes first.
-
I've never yet heard a Christian say that they put country ahead of God. For anyone of any faith, their god comes first.
There is an odd similarity in the emotional use of patriotism to that of religion. Some undefined greater good, that the individual usually has as an accident of birth, and often when they have converted they can become 'purer' in their worship of some shared values which despite being regarded as the best are often disputed and badly defined.
-
This subject is very well covered by Douglas Murray on YouTube, he covers most aspects of this problem and as I've said before I find very little in what he says to disagree with in the comments he makes about the present problems we have with terrorism.
Obviously any kind of terrorism is based very wrong misguided type of thinking and is to be deplored, however it's not all based on just the immediate things happening before our eyes, there is a considerable history to any of this kind of trouble and that, is where to me, D M covers most if not all aspects of these subjects.
ippy
-
A great many think that the secular, liberal, pluralist values by which Western nations abide are degenerate, decadent, hedonistic, blasphemous, weak and anti-Muslim.Which assumes, in the teeth of abundant evidence, that terrorists are alien, foreign, the other, from outside. In fact most of the recent high-profile cases involved British-born perpetrators.
Manchester: British terrorist.
Westminster Bridge: British terrorist.
Finsbury Park: British terrorist.
Terrorists aren't always 'they'; often they're 'we'. Given that Khalid Masood, the Westminster attacker, was a man originally called Adrian, Kent-born and from Tonbridge Wells, I suggest your Sun reader "send them all back where they came from" rhetoric needs more work to put it mildly.
Shaker,
Are you ill? I ask because even I would not in a million years think or find what you wrote acceptable by any means or terms.
-
God hates sin, so I've heard it said. So if you see western values as degenerate and sinful it's not that much of a stretch
to convince yourself that your hatred is in line with god's hatred and your actions are the carrying out of god's will.
Another one who cannot keep the answers in-line with the question,
I have no hatred you on the other hand have prejudice a prejudice which would lead you to side with evil.
The fact is NO ONE outside our Country had the right to come here and kill our children FACT DEAL WITH IT.
1/ Terrorism is a global problem,
So the UK is the WORLD NOW? NO! That's right ... Terrorism is only global because people allowed them to travel here.
2/ Most terrorists are home grown rather than foreigners that are here temporarily on some basis, either legal or illegal. Upping sticks and emigrating because they don't like life here may not be a simple option as you make it sound.
Foreigners being allowed to breed here is not home grown. And the fact remains it would be best to stop anyone coming here for the time being.
-
Sass
The UK is not an Islamic State YET ?!!?
Muslims' primary allegiance is to Islam on all levels which is why they have to have halaal butchers here even though ordinarily they would be banned as draining an animal of its blood while it's still breathing is NOT ON in 'our' rules ?!?!!?
They SHOULD BE BANNED AND REMAIN BANNED IT IS CRUEL. The same for any religion who use such barbaric methods.
-
I've never yet heard a Christian say that they put country ahead of God. For anyone of any faith, their god comes first.
How would that work? Maybe you don't hear it because it is not logical.
-
Another one who cannot keep the answers in-line with the question,
I have no hatred you on the other hand have prejudice a prejudice which would lead you to side with evil.
The fact is NO ONE outside our Country had the right to come here and kill our children FACT DEAL WITH IT.So the UK is the WORLD NOW? NO! That's right ... Terrorism is only global because people allowed them to travel here.
Foreigners being allowed to breed here is not home grown. And the fact remains it would be best to stop anyone coming here for the time being.
That's all rather naive and we will not 'abolish war and terrorism' through ignorance, we have to understand the nature of a problem in order to fix it. The facts are that terrorists are mostly home grown individuals who have been radicalised whilst living in their home country. Terrorism is a global problem in the sense that it is widespread, not restricted to one or two countries and it is a problem not because of freedom of movement. You seem to imagine that terrorists are all foreigners coming here to do bad things but the figures in Europe at least do not back you up. The vast majority of European deaths by terrorist atrocities over the last 50 years have been due to indigenous terrorists particularly in Northern Ireland, Spain, Italy and Germany. We are currently seeing a surge in Islamic jihadism and that again is a global problem, not in the sense that freedom of movement is the problem, but that Islam is a global phenomenon and so its jihadi fringe is also a global problem. Building walls, Trump style, will not solve anything long term, the real battle is to do with hearts and minds, not geography. We cannot defeat dysfunctional thinking with walls.
-
Very bad indeed and when I hear the rhetoric I can see no way out of what is happening.
There are places in the world that are a whole lot worse.
Lots of places, children sleep on the streets, no health care for the poor or vulnerable.
Places where street children are treated like vermin.
Yes we have bad things, but look what happens with the Grenfell tower for example , your ordinary person is so generous, aid is actually turned away.
They won't be left on the streets, they are given help, even if it is criticised as not being adequate.
You can't stop other people hating, they will hate anyway.
The best thing to combat them, is not allow them to effect our generous spirit.
For every twisted, mean spirited, hate filled poisonous person, there are more that are basically kind, caring people who try and help.
You have to believe in the kind people, not get sucked up by the haters.
-
Shaker,
Are you ill?
No. Are you?
I ask because even I would not in a million years think or find what you wrote acceptable by any means or terms.
Which is precisely and exactly what I think of your semi-literate and in this case ignorant and borderline racist trash.
-
Tell you what though. I've just been to Tesco and to get home I need to drive down some single track lanes. I pulled over a few times to let cars coming the other way get past and I think at least three drivers didn't say thank you. Maybe we are fucked after all.
-
Another one who cannot keep the answers in-line with the question,
I have no hatred you on the other hand have prejudice a prejudice which would lead you to side with evil.
The fact is NO ONE outside our Country had the right to come here and kill our children FACT DEAL WITH IT.So the UK is the WORLD NOW? NO! That's right ... Terrorism is only global because people allowed them to travel here.
Foreigners being allowed to breed here is not home grown. And the fact remains it would be best to stop anyone coming here for the time being.
That is RACIST! >:( Most of our ancestors were foreigners for heaven's sake, that is what has made Britain, Britain.
-
Foreigners being allowed to breed here is not home grown. And the fact remains it would be best to stop anyone coming here for the time being.
Just who do you think you are?
My partners family are all 'foreigners' by your reckoning they came here in the early 60's from East Africa. I hope at the very least your disgusting racist post is pulled.
We now have nieces and nephews who are vets and doctors and nurses and teachers and on and on and on.
You offensive piece of work.
-
Sassy,
Foreigners being allowed to breed here is not home grown.
What a thoroughly ignorant, nasty and bitter person you are.
And the fact remains it would be best to stop anyone coming here for the time being.
That's not a fact, it's bigotry. Presumably that "anyone" would include doctors, nurses, research scientists, engineers, lawyers, accountants, designers etc would it?
Would Jesus be proud of you do you think, or ashamed?
-
That is RACIST! >:( Most of our ancestors were foreigners for heaven's sake, that is what has made Britain, Britain.
There is only ONE race - The Human Race !!!
-
This country would be a ghastly place to live if it just consisted of those of the white little englander mentality. :o The fact that people of all races and creeds have the absolute right to call themselves British and are in positions of authority is good.
-
British only means born in Britain - British Isles NOT English. Whatever we may feel THAT is.
Too many seem to equate being British with being English.
-
British only means born in Britain - British Isles NOT English. Whatever we may feel THAT is.
Worth being careful here the British Isles include the island of Ireland and describing all in the Republic as British might not work.
-
Just who do you think you are?
My partners family are all 'foreigners' by your reckoning they came here in the early 60's from East Africa. I hope at the very least your disgusting racist post is pulled.
We now have nieces and nephews who are vets and doctors and nurses and teachers and on and on and on.
You offensive piece of work.
Absolutely Trent, didn't we all come out of Africa, we're all related if you go back far enough.
ippy
-
I'm always struck by racists' use of "them", "they", "foreigners" etc. Who are these out groups on which they vent their spleens? Until about 6,500 years ago there was a land bridge between the UK and continental Europe but presumably the descendants of the people who wandered across aren't considered "foreign". Then there were the Vikings who settled. Are their descendant "foreigners" then? No? How about the Romans – too early still? The Normans then? Or the Huguenots perhaps? Then we move to the Indians, the Africans, the Russian Jews. More recently we could look to the Poles (whose grandparents were some of the bravest of the RAF pilots in WWII incidentally) and so on.
See, that that's thing. When you want to blame "other" people collectively for the acts of very few and you want to use foreignness as your reference you have to draw the line somewhere. But that's arbitrary - why stop 50 years ago? Or a 100? Or a 1,000 for that matter?
Who can possibly say. Sassy perhaps?
-
Another one who cannot keep the answers in-line with the question,
I have no hatred you on the other hand have prejudice a prejudice which would lead you to side with evil.
The fact is NO ONE outside our Country had the right to come here and kill our children FACT DEAL WITH IT.So the UK is the WORLD NOW? NO! That's right ... Terrorism is only global because people allowed them to travel here.
Foreigners being allowed to breed here is not home grown. And the fact remains it would be best to stop anyone coming here for the time being.
The problem is we keep going into other countries and bombing them, and we are perceived of as thinking we have a right to do so...... we are perceived of as killing children in these countries, that is why they hate us. The picture they have of us is that we are immoral and arrogant. Your attitude isn't going to help mend that.
No terrorism isn't global because we allowed foreigners in, its global because that's how a minority of human beings behave. It's global because it's part of the dark part of human nature.
"'Foreigners being allowed to breed here"
How dehumanising of you, Sassy.
Your racism seems to be taking you to the side of evil, especially when you talk of " allowing people to breed"
Stopping people from coming here is reminiscent of Donald Trump, someone you obviously follow.
Your post reveals much about you, and it's not favourable.
-
I'm always struck by racists' use of "them", "they", "foreigners" etc. Who are these out groups on which they vent their spleens? Until about 6,500 years ago there was a land bridge between the UK and continental Europe but presumably the descendants of the people who wandered across aren't considered "foreign". Then there were the Vikings who settled. Are their descendant "foreigners" then? No? How about the Romans – too early still? The Normans then? Or the Huguenots perhaps? Then we move to the Indians, the Africans, the Russian Jews. More recently we could look to the Poles (whose grandparents were some of the bravest of the RAF pilots in WWII incidentally) and so on.
See, that that's thing. When you want to blame "other" people collectively for the acts of very few and you want to use foreignness as your reference you have to draw the line somewhere. But that's arbitrary - why stop 50 years ago? Or a 100? Or a 1,000 for that matter?
Who can possibly say. Sassy perhaps?
You're right and when I've heard someone say,"These foreigners" i always look to the right and left of them as it sounds as though they have a 'foreigner' sitting next to them!
Saying "foreigners" 'being allowed to breed here' was vile but I wonder if the bile comes out late at night/early hours of morning, some sort of obsession or mania. Just a thought which has occurred to me more than once. No-one with any intelligence could possibly mean it if they thought it all out. Hope that doesn't come across as offensive, it was as i said a thought.
Nothing else to add.
Rose you are such a thoughtful clear poster. It's refreshing.
-
I don't know if this subject belongs in this thread but here goes....
Al Quds (anti Israel) march in London last week.....
http://www.thetower.org/5105-with-quds-day-march-london-shows-tolerance-for-anti-semitism/
https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4977902,00.html
-
I don't know if this subject belongs in this thread but here goes....
Al Quds (anti Israel) march in London last week.....
http://www.thetower.org/5105-with-quds-day-march-london-shows-tolerance-for-anti-semitism/
https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4977902,00.html
We get lots of protests in London, Sriram, on all sorts of things.
People also had a counter rally to this one.
It's called freedom.
Not everyone that criticises Israel is antisemitic.
What do you think should have been done? Do you think people should be able to protest about things in London? Or do you think people should be told what they can protest about? And what they can't?
Provided it's peaceful and doesn't break the law by advertising illegal groups, I don't think there is much that can be done, without taking away people's freedom to express their opinion.
Some people protest about the humanitarian situation over there, not because they are against Israel.
I've met Jews who support Israel but at the same time feel they would like peace in the area and would like to stop the things that happen.
http://jfjfp.com/?page_id=2
https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/israeli-palestinian-conflict-101/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/11/israel-jews-arabs-palestinians-work-together-peace
http://www.yesmagazine.org/peace-justice/13-peacebuilders-in-gaza
One way to support in a humanitarian way, without falling foul of the accusation of antisemitism is to support one of the Jewish groups towards putting out the hand of friendship to Palestinians.
London sees all sorts of Protests, Sriram.
It's part of the way we are, that people can protest.
-
We get lots of protests in London, Sriram, on all sorts of things.
People also had a counter rally to this one.
It's called freedom.
Not everyone that criticises Israel is anti semantic.
Sorry, Rose, I agree entirely with your post but the typo is a brilliant one. Given I am friends with a number of self proclaimed grammar nazis, I wonder if they would be the counter protest to the anti semantic lot?
-
We get lots of protests in London, Sriram, on all sorts of things.
People also had a counter rally to this one.
It's called freedom.
Not everyone that criticises Israel is anti semantic.
That's right, and that's what happens in a country that supports freedom of speech. You are allowed to make comments, or hold a rally based on views that others might find deeply offensive.
Only where the views expressed step over a line toward incitement to violence would a protest be prevented or individuals be prevented from expressing such views.
And others are rightly able to hold counter demonstrations or express their differing views within the media - just as the articles linked to demonstrate.
This seems to demonstrate that we have a health democracy which supports freedom of speech.
-
Sorry, Rose, I agree entirely with your post but the typo is a brilliant one. Given I am friends with a number of self proclaimed grammar nazis, I wonder if they would be the counter protest to the anti semantic lot?
😁💐 sorted.
I blame the auto correct 😉
-
Foreigners being allowed to breed here is not home grown. And the fact remains it would be best to stop anyone coming here for the time being.
What is really so unpleasant about this statement is that its author constantly drowns us in meaningless quotes from The Old Goatherder's Book of Myths, Legends and Fairy Tales which she asserts confirm her moral, intellectual and religious superiority. She flaunts her "Christianity".
It clear that she is totally clueless about the meaning of the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
-
I am surprised that highly unpleasant and racist post of hers hasn't been removed by the MODs, as quite number of us find it offensive. :o
-
Floo,
I am surprised that highly unpleasant and racist post of hers hasn't been removed by the MODs, as quite number of us find it offensive.
Offence is taken rather than given, and ignorance and bigotry are not against house rules. If anything I’d say it should be added to the “best” bits area in case anyone needs reminding in future of the character of the person concerned.
-
I am surprised that highly unpleasant and racist post of hers hasn't been removed by the MODs, as quite number of us find it offensive. :o
That's free speech for you, anyway I'd rather such posts are left so other responses can be seen.
If people removed everything they found offensive, what would be left to discuss?
I'm not in favour of stifling discussion.
I am in favour of others saying why they find it offensive and providing any reader with an alternative.
To stifle subjects because we don't like them, deprives others from reading more alternative or more balanced views.
Stifle it, and it gives an idea more power than it deserves.
Giving a good answer is much better, and may influence others who may be headed in the same direction.
-
That's free speech for you, anyway I'd rather such posts are left so other responses can be seen.
If people removed everything they found offensive, what would be left to discuss?
I'm not in favour of stifling discussion.
I am in favour of others saying why they find it offensive and providing any reader with an alternative.
To stifle subjects because we don't like them, deprives others from reading more alternative or more balanced views.
Stifle it, and it gives an idea more power than it deserves.
Giving a good answer is much better, and may influence others who may be headed in the same direction.
I take your point. I hope Sass has taken on board how vile her racist comments are. >:(
-
I was in Chelmsford today and love looking around bookshops; I found this one '1,000 Years of Annoying the French' by Stephan Clarke, couldn't help chuckling at the comments on the cover etc, It has to be a good read.
Now I dislike racism as much as most people do, but there are exceptions, having a go at our close neighbours the French can be considered legitimate, such as one of the comments on the cover: Was the guillotine a French invention, Non! It was invented in Yorkshire; sold! I had to buy the blasted book.
Nothing like some well thought out abuse from your friends, I remember the dedication in one of Douglas Adams books, can't remember which one, it went something like: With thanks to Mr & Mrs whoever for their help and constructive abuse, love that kind of humour giving it out or receiving.
There are a lot of racist remarks about the French but they are very funny in the way they're presented but unfortunately we're not all given to this kind banter and there's a lot of groups that want to restrict any kind of free speech and probably wouldn't even take this kind of light hearted banter.
Which group is it now that keep trying to acquire some kind of blasphemy law, wish to curtail free speech, via the U N H R C?
ippy
-
No. Are you?
Which is precisely and exactly what I think of your semi-literate and in this case ignorant and borderline racist trash.
You still haven't realised I am better educated than you are.
We who can, do. Those who can't, like you complain about those of us, who can.
Sticks and stones, darling.
You need to put your brain into gear and think of an original answer.
My English is fine... I even tested myself by re-sitting my English O Level.
Do you know something it took 6 weeks of 1 x hour lessons for the teacher to say to me I was too advanced for the course and I sat the exam and passed.
When writing on sites, I tend to rush. But I have the qualification which means that if opinion is worth more than a qualification then all qualifications are worthless. I suppose that I am just tired of the same stupid remarks when you cannot win an argument.
You cannot win an argument and you think somehow the remarks above actually means something.
Well they don't. They show how you lack in your ability to actually address the reply with an educated answer.
-
The problem is we keep going into other countries and bombing them, and we are perceived of as thinking we have a right to do so...... we are perceived of as killing children in these countries, that is why they hate us. The picture they have of us is that we are immoral and arrogant. Your attitude isn't going to help mend that.
Give us the list of countries we keep bombing...
Ensure they are not at war or killing innocent people themselves or protecting terrorist
No terrorism isn't global because we allowed foreigners in, its global because that's how a minority of human beings behave. It's global because it's part of the dark part of human nature.
What a stupid argument and the above has nothing at all with suicide bombers and people killing our children in our own Country where we are not terrorist.
"'Foreigners being allowed to breed here"
How dehumanising of you, Sassy.
It isn't dehumanising... dehumanising is when you ignore the truth and allow people to come here and kill our innocent children and adults.
We breed whether we live here or come from abroad.
Your racism seems to be taking you to the side of evil, especially when you talk of " allowing people to breed"
I am not a racist. It makes no difference what colour or what creed. If they come here to harm our families then they should not be allowed asylum here or allowed to have children here.
Nothing racist and the truth is that you are the racist and all who call me racist because you and they are making out that all Muslins are one colour and from one country. Islam had followers from all nations and colours. So I am not the racist you and the others are by your replies.
You are making it about one race of people rather than terrorist.
I have been on about terrorist suicide bombers. In the case of Manchester his parents came here as refugees.
There is mixed races and religions in most countries. But I have been clear and clearly the only people racist are the ones making out that muslims are only one race of people and one colour when in truth they are not.
Stopping people from coming here is reminiscent of Donald Trump, someone you obviously follow.
Donald Trump wants to stop people entering America from Terrorist Countries or Countries who protect and support those terrorist/
Rather prejudice of you to suggest that it is about one race rather than just about terrorism.
Your post reveals much about you, and it's not favourable.
Actually, to the contrary... My posts is about facts and about terrorists. It is about understanding that stopping terrorists or people in Countries who support those terrorist from coming to America or even here will actually lower the risk to our Countries.
The racist card is just red-herring and an excuse because the reality is, it makes sense to keep terrorists and supporters of those terrorists groups out of countries where they cause harm.
-
I recently re-sat my ability to examine my stools. My examiner tolld me it was the same old shit.
He then asked why i felt the need to re-sit this.
I told him straight "Some people I dont know on a message board are going to be mightily impressed with the shit I've got going on"
-
You still haven't realised I am better educated than you are.
My English is fine... I even tested myself by re-sitting my English O Level.
When writing on sites, I tend to rush. But I have the qualification which means that if opinion is worth more than a qualification then all qualifications are worthless. I suppose that I am just tired of the same stupid remarks when you cannot win an argument.
Well, that settles it, doesn't it.
Sass is better educated than us all. She not only has "O" level English - she has it twice. That totally outclasses any of the rest of us. I mean, of what consequence are my two degrees, my teaching qualification, my membership of a chartered representative academic society when pitted against two "O" level passes in English?
Not only that, but with the two passes she is entitled to pontificate on ANY matter, even subjects about which she is totally clueless, because she is always right. I am surprised that Theresa May hasn't asked her to take over direct responsibility for all education in England. We shall soon learn, I dare say, that not only Boris Johnson and Michael Gove but also Jeremy Corbyn and Dr Sir Vince Cable will soon be signing up to do a second "O" level English.
But I'm not clear whether the subject is English Language or English Literature ...
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
AWWWW Don't be mean - she knoweth not what she doeth ?!?!?
-
Well, that settles it, doesn't it.
Sass is better educated than us all. She not only has "O" level English - she has it twice. That totally outclasses any of the rest of us. I mean, of what consequence are my two degrees, my teaching qualification, my membership of a chartered representative academic society when pitted against two "O" level passes in English?
Not only that, but with the two passes she is entitled to pontificate on ANY matter, even subjects about which she is totally clueless, because she is always right. I am surprised that Theresa May hasn't asked her to take over direct responsibility for all education in England. We shall soon learn, I dare say, that not only Boris Johnson and Michael Gove but also Jeremy Corbyn and Dr Sir Vince Cable will soon be signing up to do a second "O" level English.
But I'm not clear whether the subject is English Language or English Literature ...
Sass is the fount of all knowledge bestowed on her by god itself, who can compete with that? ;D ;D ;D
-
I recently re-sat my ability to examine my stools. My examiner tolld me it was the same old shit.
He then asked why i felt the need to re-sit this.
I told him straight "Some people I dont know on a message board are going to be mightily impressed with the shit I've got going on"
They're not, tough shit.
-
They're not, tough shit.
Your response shows that you are clearly the faeces of the species :P
-
When writing on sites, I tend to rush
Well then, there is your problem.
You can have one, two or more English O levels but if you don't have the intelligence to use them properly by rushing, all of the benefits of that studying go flying out of the metaphorical window.
As is well demonstrated by some of your posts on this forum.
::) ::)
-
Well then, there is your problem.
That and the fact she posted something racist.
-
You still haven't realised I am better educated than you are.
Cunningly concealed behind a facade of unlettered racism to throw us all off the scent. Fiendish.
-
Sassy,
My English is fine... I even tested myself by re-sitting my English O Level.
“O” Levels were phased out nearly 30 years ago (1988) and your written style is substantially incoherent.
I am not a racist. It makes no difference what colour or what creed. If they come here to harm our families then they should not be allowed asylum here or allowed to have children here.
Racism isn’t just about “colour or creed” as you put it. If you think that people can be sub-divided into distinct groups that are different from your own in their social behaviour or ability then you’re a racist. Your repeated use of “they” and “coming here” gives the game away.
Your real problem here by the way isn’t your deep ignorance and unpleasantness, but rather that you don’t understand how deeply ignorant and unpleasant you are.
You are in other words a poster girl for the Dunning-Kruger effect:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
-
I recently re-sat my ability to examine my stools. My examiner tolld me it was the same old shit.
He then asked why i felt the need to re-sit this.
I told him straight "Some people I dont know on a message board are going to be mightily impressed with the shit I've got going on"
Don't you mean :
He then asked why i felt the need to re-shit this.
;) :D
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
AWWWW Don't be mean - she knoweth not what she doeth ?!?!?
Oh Gentle Pardoner hast thee thrice dronke a draft of corny ale? ;)
-
Really wish I had after reading these posts ?!?!!? LOL
-
Oh dear! I hope these don't supposedly represent Britains finest or our future, or we are all in trouble!
LOL mooslamic law, innit? Muslamic infidels ..........
The EDL at its finest ::)
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1914406185481633&id=1444672609121662
-
Unbelievable. Don't they look the part too? You can spot them a mile off.
I'm glad there aren't people like that where I live, infiltrating British society, radicalising our young & marrying our girls.
-
Give us the list of countries we keep bombing...
Ensure they are not at war or killing innocent people themselves or protecting terrorist
Do you not think though that everday people in such countries seeing innocent children being killed by US or UK bombs might want to strike back in the only way they can? This was Roses's point surely. The perception of us in such countries amongst the common people is as she described and leads to further acts of terrorism I would say. Would you agree?
-
Give us the list of countries we keep bombing...
Give us a list of countries that we are at war with........