Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I heard if Labour get into power frisbees will be made illegal." And dungarees | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I heard if Labour get into power frisbees will be made illegal. And dungarees " Only every third weekend. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I heard if Labour get into power frisbees will be made illegal. And dungarees " They may take our lives but they will never take our dungarees | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So Jordan Peterson says the UK will become Venezuela for twenty years in the event of a Labour government. Is he right? " Yes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So Jordan Peterson says the UK will become Venezuela for twenty years in the event of a Labour government. Is he right? " I'll give you 8 - 1 that he may possibly be correct in his analysis that Labour will be pumping oil and gas like Billy O.   | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who is Jordan Peterson? " an intellectual who is not afraid to speak his mind, who has had his own demons to deal with. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I heard if Labour get into power frisbees will be made illegal. And dungarees " And cords  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So Jordan Peterson says the UK will become Venezuela for twenty years in the event of a Labour government. Is he right? " I'm not sure that's any worse than where we're heading now. Disregard for the rule of law, subversion of the judiciary, claims that the government (as opposed to parliament) is representative of the will of the people, persistent attempts to circumvent parliamentary scrutiny and accountability, unnecessary voter restriction laws. We seem well on the road to a Venezuelan style democracy already. And that's before we even start talking about our shrinking economy, flight of foreign investment, and growing labour and brain drains. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I heard if Labour get into power frisbees will be made illegal. And dungarees And cords "Apparently the proposal is that corduroys are only going to banned for teachers and university lecturers. It's part of the policy to make them look more professional and improve their image in the community.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I heard if Labour get into power frisbees will be made illegal. And dungarees And cords
Apparently the proposal is that corduroys are only going to banned for teachers and university lecturers. It's part of the policy to make them look more professional and improve their image in the community. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I heard if Labour get into power frisbees will be made illegal. And dungarees And cords
Apparently the proposal is that corduroys are only going to banned for teachers and university lecturers. It's part of the policy to make them look more professional and improve their image in the community. "And leatherette patch elbows! Also as Labour are so desperate to get elected to govt they are going hard in on the youth vote so will be making low rider jeans, hoodies, baseball caps, and fried chicken tax free! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Glad corduroys are not going to be banned entirely was thinking of buying a couple of pairs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who is Jordan Peterson? an intellectual who is not afraid to speak his mind, who has had his own demons to deal with. " If Peterson is what passes for an intellectual these days, we're all in trouble. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who is Jordan Peterson? an intellectual who is not afraid to speak his mind, who has had his own demons to deal with. If Peterson is what passes for an intellectual these days, we're all in trouble."
That tickled me | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So Jordan Peterson says the UK will become Venezuela for twenty years in the event of a Labour government. Is he right? " Bollocks. The U.K. was never more wealthy than it was in the Blair/Brown era and GDP per capita has still not recovered. Personally I will be hopeful that just the political noise gets turned down and the sitting Govt just stop manipulating people to get reactions and instead… just make country a good place to live and do business. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who is Jordan Peterson? an intellectual who is not afraid to speak his mind, who has had his own demons to deal with. If Peterson is what passes for an intellectual these days, we're all in trouble." He was a professor at Harvard University, amongst other things.... Try not to be hater all of the time.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who is Jordan Peterson? an intellectual who is not afraid to speak his mind, who has had his own demons to deal with. If Peterson is what passes for an intellectual these days, we're all in trouble. He was a professor at Harvard University, amongst other things.... Try not to be hater all of the time...." Lol, yeah okay I'll try to not be a totally bogus hater, broski. Seriously though, the man's a hack. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who is Jordan Peterson? an intellectual who is not afraid to speak his mind, who has had his own demons to deal with. If Peterson is what passes for an intellectual these days, we're all in trouble. He was a professor at Harvard University, amongst other things.... Try not to be hater all of the time.... Lol, yeah okay I'll try to not be a totally bogus hater, broski. Seriously though, the man's a hack." Explain away | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who is Jordan Peterson? an intellectual who is not afraid to speak his mind, who has had his own demons to deal with. If Peterson is what passes for an intellectual these days, we're all in trouble. He was a professor at Harvard University, amongst other things.... Try not to be hater all of the time...." If you are going to say he was a professor at Harvard, then it’s also fair to point out he hasn’t actually been a professor there for 25 years….. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who is Jordan Peterson? an intellectual who is not afraid to speak his mind, who has had his own demons to deal with. If Peterson is what passes for an intellectual these days, we're all in trouble. He was a professor at Harvard University, amongst other things.... Try not to be hater all of the time.... Lol, yeah okay I'll try to not be a totally bogus hater, broski. Seriously though, the man's a hack. Explain away" I could, but you wouldn't listen, so let's just leave it there, shall we? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who is Jordan Peterson? an intellectual who is not afraid to speak his mind, who has had his own demons to deal with. If Peterson is what passes for an intellectual these days, we're all in trouble. He was a professor at Harvard University, amongst other things.... Try not to be hater all of the time.... Lol, yeah okay I'll try to not be a totally bogus hater, broski. Seriously though, the man's a hack. Explain away I could, but you wouldn't listen, so let's just leave it there, shall we?" Happy to hear your thoughts, it is always good to get a different view. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who is Jordan Peterson? an intellectual who is not afraid to speak his mind, who has had his own demons to deal with. If Peterson is what passes for an intellectual these days, we're all in trouble. He was a professor at Harvard University, amongst other things.... Try not to be hater all of the time.... If you are going to say he was a professor at Harvard, then it’s also fair to point out he hasn’t actually been a professor there for 25 years….. " Does that dilute the achievement or the fact he was a professor at Harvard? He was also professor emeritus at Toronto. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who is Jordan Peterson? an intellectual who is not afraid to speak his mind, who has had his own demons to deal with. If Peterson is what passes for an intellectual these days, we're all in trouble. He was a professor at Harvard University, amongst other things.... Try not to be hater all of the time.... If you are going to say he was a professor at Harvard, then it’s also fair to point out he hasn’t actually been a professor there for 25 years….. Does that dilute the achievement or the fact he was a professor at Harvard? He was also professor emeritus at Toronto." I think it does dilute current credibility but not previous achievement. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who is Jordan Peterson? an intellectual who is not afraid to speak his mind, who has had his own demons to deal with. If Peterson is what passes for an intellectual these days, we're all in trouble. He was a professor at Harvard University, amongst other things.... Try not to be hater all of the time.... Lol, yeah okay I'll try to not be a totally bogus hater, broski. Seriously though, the man's a hack. Explain away I could, but you wouldn't listen, so let's just leave it there, shall we? Happy to hear your thoughts, it is always good to get a different view." Fair enough. I wrote this a while back but still stand by it: "I'm a big fan of normalising men crying in public, but I'd make an exception for Jordan Peterson weeping into his podcast microphone while he sits across from some finance bro conspiracy theorist meathead and hawks his latest self-help pamphlet that dresses up hackneyed clichés about paternalistic tough love as some bold new paradigm in socioeconomic thought. I know far too many otherwise smart people who are impressed that his voice quivers when he waxes lyrical about the moral fortitude of working class men he'll never meet who get up early to go to shit jobs as if there's anything inherently noble about wage-sl*very, that he gets misty-eyed about captalist workaholics who devote their lives to turning the planet into a concrete-paved treadmill where real, loud, violent men prove themselves and the rest of us ought to be embarrassed by our preference for peace and quiet, that he gets snippy and peevish whenever he's required to speak to anyone who doesn't just gratefully accept his core outlook that Things Must Be The Way They Are For A Good Reason." I reckon that about sums it up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who is Jordan Peterson? an intellectual who is not afraid to speak his mind, who has had his own demons to deal with. If Peterson is what passes for an intellectual these days, we're all in trouble. He was a professor at Harvard University, amongst other things.... Try not to be hater all of the time.... Lol, yeah okay I'll try to not be a totally bogus hater, broski. Seriously though, the man's a hack. Explain away I could, but you wouldn't listen, so let's just leave it there, shall we? Happy to hear your thoughts, it is always good to get a different view. Fair enough. I wrote this a while back but still stand by it: "I'm a big fan of normalising men crying in public, but I'd make an exception for Jordan Peterson weeping into his podcast microphone while he sits across from some finance bro conspiracy theorist meathead and hawks his latest self-help pamphlet that dresses up hackneyed clichés about paternalistic tough love as some bold new paradigm in socioeconomic thought. I know far too many otherwise smart people who are impressed that his voice quivers when he waxes lyrical about the moral fortitude of working class men he'll never meet who get up early to go to shit jobs as if there's anything inherently noble about wage-sl*very, that he gets misty-eyed about captalist workaholics who devote their lives to turning the planet into a concrete-paved treadmill where real, loud, violent men prove themselves and the rest of us ought to be embarrassed by our preference for peace and quiet, that he gets snippy and peevish whenever he's required to speak to anyone who doesn't just gratefully accept his core outlook that Things Must Be The Way They Are For A Good Reason." I reckon that about sums it up." I can see you don't like him, that is more than obvious! However his discussions about working class men as an example, force people to consider the well-being of those who often go unnoticed in society, forgotten and just left to get on with it. What matters most to you seems to be how you feel about a person, regardless of the message. He has had his battles with drugs and depression, he has strong views but that doesn't mean he should be treated with contempt. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I can see you don't like him, that is more than obvious! However his discussions about working class men as an example, force people to consider the well-being of those who often go unnoticed in society, forgotten and just left to get on with it. What matters most to you seems to be how you feel about a person, regardless of the message. He has had his battles with drugs and depression, he has strong views but that doesn't mean he should be treated with contempt. " You're being generous. Peterson doesn't force people to contend with the real struggle of the labouring class. He presents the struggle as necessary and noble and character-building, and decides those who would reasonably seek to avoid it (both for themselves and others) as soft and afraid and unfit to lead. This is why he is so popular with what one might kindly describe as a certain kind of confused, disenfranchised young male. From whom, let's not forget, Peterson is spinning a decent amount of money. I'm not attacking him personally or whatever his demons may be. I am however attacking his writing, his public speech and his behaviour when in a position of not inconsiderable influence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I can see you don't like him, that is more than obvious! However his discussions about working class men as an example, force people to consider the well-being of those who often go unnoticed in society, forgotten and just left to get on with it. What matters most to you seems to be how you feel about a person, regardless of the message. He has had his battles with drugs and depression, he has strong views but that doesn't mean he should be treated with contempt. You're being generous. Peterson doesn't force people to contend with the real struggle of the labouring class. He presents the struggle as necessary and noble and character-building, and decides those who would reasonably seek to avoid it (both for themselves and others) as soft and afraid and unfit to lead. This is why he is so popular with what one might kindly describe as a certain kind of confused, disenfranchised young male. From whom, let's not forget, Peterson is spinning a decent amount of money. I'm not attacking him personally or whatever his demons may be. I am however attacking his writing, his public speech and his behaviour when in a position of not inconsiderable influence." He certainly has influence and so much so we are discussing him and his views / approach. He is different, because he refuses to bend and that has upset a lot of people who require latitude in getting their message across, this in turn has caused him conflict, enemies and supporters. There is room for him because society is changing so quickly that people, especially young males are being left behind. I think it is better to understand the influence and why he has the influence than to discredit him and hope goes away, doing that will bury the problems that exist for them to resurface and become an even bigger problem. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". He certainly has influence and so much so we are discussing him and his views / approach. He is different, because he refuses to bend and that has upset a lot of people who require latitude in getting their message across, this in turn has caused him conflict, enemies and supporters. There is room for him because society is changing so quickly that people, especially young males are being left behind. I think it is better to understand the influence and why he has the influence than to discredit him and hope goes away, doing that will bury the problems that exist for them to resurface and become an even bigger problem. " While I'm not proposing to "cancel" him or anything similar, I do again think you're being generous in suggesting that his influence is necessary. Peterson is not the only person addressing his demographic, and while certainly not as toxic as the Andrew Tates or the Joe Rogans who occupy similar spaces, there are far better messages than his which are often crowded out by the kind of boilerplate populist mediocrity he peddles. I haven't mentioned his transphobia or his climate change denial, which amongst his (even) more problematic ideas do peg him as somewhat of a conspiracy nut. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I heard if Labour get into power frisbees will be made illegal. And dungarees " that's the vote winner | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So Jordan Peterson says the UK will become Venezuela for twenty years in the event of a Labour government. Is he right? Bollocks. The U.K. was never more wealthy than it was in the Blair/Brown era and GDP per capita has still not recovered..." You'd have to do some pretty selective cherry picking to draw that conclusion | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So Jordan Peterson says the UK will become Venezuela for twenty years in the event of a Labour government. Is he right? " We need their policies. I like Peterson but on economics he's out of his depth. I dont think labour sre that wildly left. Certainly not compared to Corbyn. I think they'll definitely harm the economy based on their opposition to ,almost every government economic bill if they beleive the opposite | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So Jordan Peterson says the UK will become Venezuela for twenty years in the event of a Labour government. Is he right? " £2,591,000,000,000 public debt Equivalent to £92,000 per household Interest cost equivalent to £3700 per household per annum We’ve just had the highest tax rises in 70 years and it’s made little difference to plugging the cost of spending Higher consumer debt than 2008, home ownership has fallen, final salary pension schemes closed for most of private sector. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My view is that people ought to take more notice of people like Akala and less notice of people like Jordan Peterson if they want to understand why so many people in wealthy countries live miserable shitty lives." I agree, Akala is brilliant. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So Jordan Peterson says the UK will become Venezuela for twenty years in the event of a Labour government. Is he right? We need their policies. I like Peterson but on economics he's out of his depth. I dont think labour sre that wildly left. Certainly not compared to Corbyn. I think they'll definitely harm the economy based on their opposition to ,almost every government economic bill if they beleive the opposite" But are they opposing because they are the opposition? It is easy to snipe from across the House when you aren’t holding the purse strings. Once in and faced with reality we may see more alignment than many expect. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So Jordan Peterson says the UK will become Venezuela for twenty years in the event of a Labour government. Is he right? We need their policies. I like Peterson but on economics he's out of his depth. I dont think labour sre that wildly left. Certainly not compared to Corbyn. I think they'll definitely harm the economy based on their opposition to ,almost every government economic bill if they beleive the opposite But are they opposing because they are the opposition? It is easy to snipe from across the House when you aren’t holding the purse strings. Once in and faced with reality we may see more alignment than many expect." You're correct, this is almost always what happens when a government-focused administration gets into power. It's always alleged that left-of-centre parties getting in will be disastrous for the economy - in the West at least it rarely is. Those allegations are usually made by people who support parties whose first acts in power are slashing rich people's taxes and gutting public services, both of which reliably depress the economy. (For those about to demand I prove the above statements, please change the record.) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So Jordan Peterson says the UK will become Venezuela for twenty years in the event of a Labour government. Is he right? We need their policies. I like Peterson but on economics he's out of his depth. I dont think labour sre that wildly left. Certainly not compared to Corbyn. I think they'll definitely harm the economy based on their opposition to ,almost every government economic bill if they beleive the opposite But are they opposing because they are the opposition? It is easy to snipe from across the House when you aren’t holding the purse strings. Once in and faced with reality we may see more alignment than many expect. You're correct, this is almost always what happens when a government-focused administration gets into power. It's always alleged that left-of-centre parties getting in will be disastrous for the economy - in the West at least it rarely is. Those allegations are usually made by people who support parties whose first acts in power are slashing rich people's taxes and gutting public services, both of which reliably depress the economy. (For those about to demand I prove the above statements, please change the record.)" Best to leave yourself out of the debates then if you do not like to be challenged on your comments.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So Jordan Peterson says the UK will become Venezuela for twenty years in the event of a Labour government. Is he right? We need their policies. I like Peterson but on economics he's out of his depth. I dont think labour sre that wildly left. Certainly not compared to Corbyn. I think they'll definitely harm the economy based on their opposition to ,almost every government economic bill if they beleive the opposite But are they opposing because they are the opposition? It is easy to snipe from across the House when you aren’t holding the purse strings. Once in and faced with reality we may see more alignment than many expect. You're correct, this is almost always what happens when a government-focused administration gets into power. It's always alleged that left-of-centre parties getting in will be disastrous for the economy - in the West at least it rarely is. Those allegations are usually made by people who support parties whose first acts in power are slashing rich people's taxes and gutting public services, both of which reliably depress the economy. (For those about to demand I prove the above statements, please change the record.) Best to leave yourself out of the debates then if you do not like to be challenged on your comments. "So, you and your buddies don't seem to understand that debate consists of refuting arguments with contrasting information and positions of your own, not just standing there shouting "prove it!" like a six-year-old who's just been told there's no Santa Claus. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So Jordan Peterson says the UK will become Venezuela for twenty years in the event of a Labour government. Is he right? We need their policies. I like Peterson but on economics he's out of his depth. I dont think labour sre that wildly left. Certainly not compared to Corbyn. I think they'll definitely harm the economy based on their opposition to ,almost every government economic bill if they beleive the opposite But are they opposing because they are the opposition? It is easy to snipe from across the House when you aren’t holding the purse strings. Once in and faced with reality we may see more alignment than many expect. You're correct, this is almost always what happens when a government-focused administration gets into power. It's always alleged that left-of-centre parties getting in will be disastrous for the economy - in the West at least it rarely is. Those allegations are usually made by people who support parties whose first acts in power are slashing rich people's taxes and gutting public services, both of which reliably depress the economy. (For those about to demand I prove the above statements, please change the record.) Best to leave yourself out of the debates then if you do not like to be challenged on your comments.
So, you and your buddies don't seem to understand that debate consists of refuting arguments with contrasting information and positions of your own, not just standing there shouting "prove it!" like a six-year-old who's just been told there's no Santa Claus."It is devastating for the child when they realise they have been lied to all their life. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So, you and your buddies don't seem to understand that debate consists of refuting arguments with contrasting information and positions of your own, not just standing there shouting "prove it!" like a six-year-old who's just been told there's no Santa Claus." This is standard fab tactic, especially if it's something widely known and accepted. The moon isn't made of cheese - 'link me to the proof'. The earth is a globe - 'link me to the proof'. Brexit is damaging the economy - 'link me to the proof'. Water is wet - 'link me to the proof'. Etc etc | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So, you and your buddies don't seem to understand that debate consists of refuting arguments with contrasting information and positions of your own, not just standing there shouting "prove it!" like a six-year-old who's just been told there's no Santa Claus. This is standard fab tactic, especially if it's something widely known and accepted. The moon isn't made of cheese - 'link me to the proof'. The earth is a globe - 'link me to the proof'. Brexit is damaging the economy - 'link me to the proof'. Water is wet - 'link me to the proof'. Etc etc" Water can be considered wet or dry, it depends on how wet is defined. And here is a link from "BBC science focus" to help you understand this further should you wish: https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/is-water-wet Not hard is it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So, you and your buddies don't seem to understand that debate consists of refuting arguments with contrasting information and positions of your own, not just standing there shouting "prove it!" like a six-year-old who's just been told there's no Santa Claus. This is standard fab tactic, especially if it's something widely known and accepted. The moon isn't made of cheese - 'link me to the proof'. The earth is a globe - 'link me to the proof'. Brexit is damaging the economy - 'link me to the proof'. Water is wet - 'link me to the proof'. Etc etc Water can be considered wet or dry, it depends on how wet is defined. And here is a link from "BBC science focus" to help you understand this further should you wish: https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/is-water-wet Not hard is it? " Science! That's not very on brand! Fair play to you, maybe turning over a new leaf in 2024! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So, you and your buddies don't seem to understand that debate consists of refuting arguments with contrasting information and positions of your own, not just standing there shouting "prove it!" like a six-year-old who's just been told there's no Santa Claus. This is standard fab tactic, especially if it's something widely known and accepted. The moon isn't made of cheese - 'link me to the proof'. The earth is a globe - 'link me to the proof'. Brexit is damaging the economy - 'link me to the proof'. Water is wet - 'link me to the proof'. Etc etc" Yes, I'm pretty familiar with it. It's basically not permitted in formal debate because it's so intellectually lazy and dishonest. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So, you and your buddies don't seem to understand that debate consists of refuting arguments with contrasting information and positions of your own, not just standing there shouting "prove it!" like a six-year-old who's just been told there's no Santa Claus. This is standard fab tactic, especially if it's something widely known and accepted. The moon isn't made of cheese - 'link me to the proof'. The earth is a globe - 'link me to the proof'. Brexit is damaging the economy - 'link me to the proof'. Water is wet - 'link me to the proof'. Etc etc Water can be considered wet or dry, it depends on how wet is defined. And here is a link from "BBC science focus" to help you understand this further should you wish: https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/is-water-wet Not hard is it? Science! That's not very on brand! Fair play to you, maybe turning over a new leaf in 2024! " The problem is Johnny, you need to be able to understand the science | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But HELLO! S A N T A isn’t real? "Remain calm, they are being mean to the 6 year old  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So, you and your buddies don't seem to understand that debate consists of refuting arguments with contrasting information and positions of your own, not just standing there shouting "prove it!" like a six-year-old who's just been told there's no Santa Claus. This is standard fab tactic, especially if it's something widely known and accepted. The moon isn't made of cheese - 'link me to the proof'. The earth is a globe - 'link me to the proof'. Brexit is damaging the economy - 'link me to the proof'. Water is wet - 'link me to the proof'. Etc etc Water can be considered wet or dry, it depends on how wet is defined. And here is a link from "BBC science focus" to help you understand this further should you wish: https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/is-water-wet Not hard is it? " That's a pretty good example of the process at work. You show one of these guys proof that water is wet, by e.g. pouring a glass of water onto a towel, they would dig out this extremely narrow scrap of data that technically broadens definitions of "wet" in a ridiculously specific context, and use it to assert that the proposition is therefore completely false, even though in any sense that actually matters in the real world it's obviously true. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But HELLO! S A N T A isn’t real?
Remain calm, they are being mean to the 6 year old "Sod the 6 year old, I an trying to figure out if Santa isn’t real who the hell emptied his sack all over Mrs B a week ago! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So, you and your buddies don't seem to understand that debate consists of refuting arguments with contrasting information and positions of your own, not just standing there shouting "prove it!" like a six-year-old who's just been told there's no Santa Claus. This is standard fab tactic, especially if it's something widely known and accepted. The moon isn't made of cheese - 'link me to the proof'. The earth is a globe - 'link me to the proof'. Brexit is damaging the economy - 'link me to the proof'. Water is wet - 'link me to the proof'. Etc etc Water can be considered wet or dry, it depends on how wet is defined. And here is a link from "BBC science focus" to help you understand this further should you wish: https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/is-water-wet Not hard is it? That's a pretty good example of the process at work. You show one of these guys proof that water is wet, by e.g. pouring a glass of water onto a towel, they would dig out this extremely narrow scrap of data that technically broadens definitions of "wet" in a ridiculously specific context, and use it to assert that the proposition is therefore completely false, even though in any sense that actually matters in the real world it's obviously true." I’m think you simply missed the point or don’t understand. Try reading the link, it might help | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So, you and your buddies don't seem to understand that debate consists of refuting arguments with contrasting information and positions of your own, not just standing there shouting "prove it!" like a six-year-old who's just been told there's no Santa Claus. This is standard fab tactic, especially if it's something widely known and accepted. The moon isn't made of cheese - 'link me to the proof'. The earth is a globe - 'link me to the proof'. Brexit is damaging the economy - 'link me to the proof'. Water is wet - 'link me to the proof'. Etc etc Water can be considered wet or dry, it depends on how wet is defined. And here is a link from "BBC science focus" to help you understand this further should you wish: https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/is-water-wet Not hard is it? Science! That's not very on brand! Fair play to you, maybe turning over a new leaf in 2024! The problem is Johnny, you need to be able to understand the science "Indeed. Usually it's pretty easy to understand. Some people would rather argue endlessly that science isn't real rather than taking the time to understand it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". I’m think you simply missed the point or don’t understand. Try reading the link, it might help" ...and when you call them out on it, they tell you're missing their point because you're too stupid to understand. They don't rephrase their argument or anything, they just tell you to waste your time going back over the same useless information. NB: the article is exactly what I've described, i.e., a technical distinction that while correct in a narrow sense is irrelevant to the broader context. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So, you and your buddies don't seem to understand that debate consists of refuting arguments with contrasting information and positions of your own, not just standing there shouting "prove it!" like a six-year-old who's just been told there's no Santa Claus. This is standard fab tactic, especially if it's something widely known and accepted. The moon isn't made of cheese - 'link me to the proof'. The earth is a globe - 'link me to the proof'. Brexit is damaging the economy - 'link me to the proof'. Water is wet - 'link me to the proof'. Etc etc Water can be considered wet or dry, it depends on how wet is defined. And here is a link from "BBC science focus" to help you understand this further should you wish: https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/is-water-wet Not hard is it? That's a pretty good example of the process at work. You show one of these guys proof that water is wet, by e.g. pouring a glass of water onto a towel, they would dig out this extremely narrow scrap of data that technically broadens definitions of "wet" in a ridiculously specific context, and use it to assert that the proposition is therefore completely false, even though in any sense that actually matters in the real world it's obviously true." Is water actually wet or does liquid make something wet? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". I’m think you simply missed the point or don’t understand. Try reading the link, it might help ...and when you call them out on it, they tell you're missing their point because you're too stupid to understand. They don't rephrase their argument or anything, they just tell you to waste your time going back over the same useless information. NB: the article is exactly what I've described, i.e., a technical distinction that while correct in a narrow sense is irrelevant to the broader context." Can you see you are arguing about things when there is no argument. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Is water actually wet or does liquid make something wet?" Yeah, let's get bogged down in a semantic distinction. Is water actually wet or does it just make stuff wet? Is Farage actually a racist or does he just champion other racists? Was Brexit a disaster or has it merely caused a disaster? It's all such a rich vein of complete pointlessness. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". I’m think you simply missed the point or don’t understand. Try reading the link, it might help ...and when you call them out on it, they tell you're missing their point because you're too stupid to understand. They don't rephrase their argument or anything, they just tell you to waste your time going back over the same useless information. NB: the article is exactly what I've described, i.e., a technical distinction that while correct in a narrow sense is irrelevant to the broader context. Can you see you are arguing about things when there is no argument. "I'm not arguing. I'm explaining your rhetorical habits. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Is water actually wet or does liquid make something wet? Yeah, let's get bogged down in a semantic distinction. Is water actually wet or does it just make stuff wet? Is Farage actually a racist or does he just champion other racists? Was Brexit a disaster or has it merely caused a disaster? It's all such a rich vein of complete pointlessness." I mean we're told to believe the science. Most scientists do not define water as wet. Is it the scientists who we should listen to or not? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Is water actually wet or does liquid make something wet? Yeah, let's get bogged down in a semantic distinction. Is water actually wet or does it just make stuff wet? Is Farage actually a racist or does he just champion other racists? Was Brexit a disaster or has it merely caused a disaster? It's all such a rich vein of complete pointlessness. I mean we're told to believe the science. Most scientists do not define water as wet. Is it the scientists who we should listen to or not?" Well now, I guess it depends on whether you're actually trying to make a determination about the properties of liquids, or whether you're cherrypicking data to cast doubt on a useful consensus to satisfy your blinkered political convictions. 9 out of 10 scientists say they'd rather you didn't use their findings in any of your arguments. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Is water actually wet or does liquid make something wet? Yeah, let's get bogged down in a semantic distinction. Is water actually wet or does it just make stuff wet? Is Farage actually a racist or does he just champion other racists? Was Brexit a disaster or has it merely caused a disaster? It's all such a rich vein of complete pointlessness. I mean we're told to believe the science. Most scientists do not define water as wet. Is it the scientists who we should listen to or not? Well now, I guess it depends on whether you're actually trying to make a determination about the properties of liquids, or whether you're cherrypicking data to cast doubt on a useful consensus to satisfy your blinkered political convictions. 9 out of 10 scientists say they'd rather you didn't use their findings in any of your arguments." As I said, I've been told, quite regularly, by your new mate, to listen to the science. You're the one making the argument that goes against the science. Should I listen to the science, or only listen to science you agree with? That's fairly standard for the left. As if you're in a position to speak of others 'blinkered political convictions'. Once again, take a look in the mirror (kiss) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". I’m think you simply missed the point or don’t understand. Try reading the link, it might help ...and when you call them out on it, they tell you're missing their point because you're too stupid to understand. They don't rephrase their argument or anything, they just tell you to waste your time going back over the same useless information. NB: the article is exactly what I've described, i.e., a technical distinction that while correct in a narrow sense is irrelevant to the broader context. Can you see you are arguing about things when there is no argument.
I'm not arguing. I'm explaining your rhetorical habits."You are arguing, I simply showed an example from a posters comments that outlined what he believed to be stating the obvious, was in fact not as obvious as he might first of thought, giving a link for him to be able to check it himself. You however started to attack my post, when maybe you could have considered the intent and meaning before attacking needlessly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" As I said, I've been told, quite regularly, by your new mate, to listen to the science. You're the one making the argument that goes against the science. Should I listen to the science, or only listen to science you agree with? That's fairly standard for the left. As if you're in a position to speak of others 'blinkered political convictions'. Once again, take a look in the mirror (kiss)" So let's assume for a minute you're a person with a more or less sophisticated grasp of the distinction between things that are technically true in a scientific sense and things that are broadly true in an everyday sense. For example, the distinction between: A: "It's never 100% dark on the surface of the Earth", and B: "It's dark outside". Are you with me so far? Good. What I'm explaining is the tendency of people who constantly ask their debate opponents to prove things, not so they can then modify their own positions accordingly, but so they can take that proof and use cherrypicked, contextually irrelevant data to question its validity, for example using the technical correctness of the above statement A to assert that statement B is false. Above you present the false dilemma of either agreeing with the science (statement A) or disagreeing with it (statement B). The truth is that both statements can be simultaneously true because they have different contextual meanings. You don't need to disbelieve in optical science to look out your window after sunset and conclude that you'd better take a torch or you'll fall on your face. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" As I said, I've been told, quite regularly, by your new mate, to listen to the science. You're the one making the argument that goes against the science. Should I listen to the science, or only listen to science you agree with? That's fairly standard for the left. As if you're in a position to speak of others 'blinkered political convictions'. Once again, take a look in the mirror (kiss) So let's assume for a minute you're a person with a more or less sophisticated grasp of the distinction between things that are technically true in a scientific sense and things that are broadly true in an everyday sense. For example, the distinction between: A: "It's never 100% dark on the surface of the Earth", and B: "It's dark outside". Are you with me so far? Good. What I'm explaining is the tendency of people who constantly ask their debate opponents to prove things, not so they can then modify their own positions accordingly, but so they can take that proof and use cherrypicked, contextually irrelevant data to question its validity, for example using the technical correctness of the above statement A to assert that statement B is false. Above you present the false dilemma of either agreeing with the science (statement A) or disagreeing with it (statement B). The truth is that both statements can be simultaneously true because they have different contextual meanings. You don't need to disbelieve in optical science to look out your window after sunset and conclude that you'd better take a torch or you'll fall on your face." You initially said 'pouring water onto a towel proves water is wet', no it doesn't, the towel becomes wet. As I said, water makes things wet, according to the science 
I mean the debate of 'is water wet?' will go on until the end of earth and never be proved one way or the other.
BTW, I haven't asked for proof water is wet, it's your game to play 'I won't prove anything' | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You are arguing, I simply showed an example from a posters comments that outlined what he believed to be stating the obvious, was in fact not as obvious as he might first of thought, giving a link for him to be able to check it himself. " Nah. You think I'm disagreeing with you. I agree with what you've just written. What you've just described is the whole approach. Good faith debate relies on being about to make assertions that all parties accept to be broadly true and use that common ground as a basis for productive exchange on the matters at hand. That can't happen when one party insists on quibbling over the fine detail of the technical accuracy of however irrelevant points. "Water is wet", while inaccurate in strictly scientific terms, is a generally understood expression of an obvious and useful thing. It might make you feel clever to say "yeah but is it though, really, though?" and get our your back issue of New Scientist, and hey, maybe you even believe it's harmless, but what this kind of pedantry doesn't do is further any debate in a productive or meaningful sense. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I heard if Labour get into power frisbees will be made illegal." Any evidence for this? !!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You initially said 'pouring water onto a towel proves water is wet', no it doesn't, the towel becomes wet. As I said, water makes things wet, according to the science
I mean the debate of 'is water wet?' will go on until the end of earth and never be proved one way or the other.
BTW, I haven't asked for proof water is wet, it's your game to play 'I won't prove anything'"... you think I'm debating the "water is/isn't wet" thing. Jesus wept. Look, never mind, have a nice New Year. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You are arguing, I simply showed an example from a posters comments that outlined what he believed to be stating the obvious, was in fact not as obvious as he might first of thought, giving a link for him to be able to check it himself. Nah. You think I'm disagreeing with you. I agree with what you've just written. What you've just described is the whole approach. Good faith debate relies on being about to make assertions that all parties accept to be broadly true and use that common ground as a basis for productive exchange on the matters at hand. That can't happen when one party insists on quibbling over the fine detail of the technical accuracy of however irrelevant points. "Water is wet", while inaccurate in strictly scientific terms, is a generally understood expression of an obvious and useful thing. It might make you feel clever to say "yeah but is it though, really, though?" and get our your back issue of New Scientist, and hey, maybe you even believe it's harmless, but what this kind of pedantry doesn't do is further any debate in a productive or meaningful sense." In essence what you saying is as long as you believe you are right and could possibly be right based on how you think, that is enough to conclude your view is perfectly legitimate and requires no further challenge. How would this rationale work with weights and measures? Scientists saying add about 21mg that is near enough or when you buy fuel, you wouldn’t be to happy with about the right amount and let’s not even think about making waterproof clothing | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You are arguing, I simply showed an example from a posters comments that outlined what he believed to be stating the obvious, was in fact not as obvious as he might first of thought, giving a link for him to be able to check it himself. Nah. You think I'm disagreeing with you. I agree with what you've just written. What you've just described is the whole approach. Good faith debate relies on being about to make assertions that all parties accept to be broadly true and use that common ground as a basis for productive exchange on the matters at hand. That can't happen when one party insists on quibbling over the fine detail of the technical accuracy of however irrelevant points. "Water is wet", while inaccurate in strictly scientific terms, is a generally understood expression of an obvious and useful thing. It might make you feel clever to say "yeah but is it though, really, though?" and get our your back issue of New Scientist, and hey, maybe you even believe it's harmless, but what this kind of pedantry doesn't do is further any debate in a productive or meaningful sense." You've gone so far down the rabbit hole that you missed Notme's position of 'water can be considered wet or dry' He never argued over semantics at all | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You initially said 'pouring water onto a towel proves water is wet', no it doesn't, the towel becomes wet. As I said, water makes things wet, according to the science
I mean the debate of 'is water wet?' will go on until the end of earth and never be proved one way or the other.
BTW, I haven't asked for proof water is wet, it's your game to play 'I won't prove anything'
... you think I'm debating the "water is/isn't wet" thing.
Jesus wept.
Look, never mind, have a nice New Year."You got yourself into it by using that statement. It appears tou really don't like to be challenged. Maybe take a little step back and re-evaluate  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" In essence what you saying is as long as you believe you are right and could possibly be right based on how you think, that is enough to conclude your view is perfectly legitimate and requires no further challenge. How would this rationale work with weights and measures? Scientists saying add about 21mg that is near enough or when you buy fuel, you wouldn’t be to happy with about the right amount and let’s not even think about making waterproof clothing "No. No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I would rephrase it, but I suspect you're perfectly capable of understanding how information can have different interpretations according to context, you're just pretending not to so you can misrepresent my view as indifference to accuracy in favour of my beliefs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You are arguing, I simply showed an example from a posters comments that outlined what he believed to be stating the obvious, was in fact not as obvious as he might first of thought, giving a link for him to be able to check it himself. Nah. You think I'm disagreeing with you. I agree with what you've just written. What you've just described is the whole approach. Good faith debate relies on being about to make assertions that all parties accept to be broadly true and use that common ground as a basis for productive exchange on the matters at hand. That can't happen when one party insists on quibbling over the fine detail of the technical accuracy of however irrelevant points. "Water is wet", while inaccurate in strictly scientific terms, is a generally understood expression of an obvious and useful thing. It might make you feel clever to say "yeah but is it though, really, though?" and get our your back issue of New Scientist, and hey, maybe you even believe it's harmless, but what this kind of pedantry doesn't do is further any debate in a productive or meaningful sense. In essence what you saying is as long as you believe you are right and could possibly be right based on how you think, that is enough to conclude your view is perfectly legitimate and requires no further challenge. How would this rationale work with weights and measures? Scientists saying add about 21mg that is near enough or when you buy fuel, you wouldn’t be to happy with about the right amount and let’s not even think about making waterproof clothing "I read his point as context matters. The rationale most often wouldn’t work with weights and measures because it’s something where the weight and measure is designed to provide specificity (is that even a word? It doesn’t seem correct now i see it :-s). And the weight and the measure most likely matters - if you are being charged for a pint of beer you want a pint of beer. If you need certain mg of medication you want it to be that mg of medication. (Maybe standardisation was a better way to put it). However there will be some occasions where the context means it is less important. If the recipe says put in 200g of butter , its probably not going to entirely fall apart if you eyeball 1/5th of your kg block despite it scientifically probably not being 200g exactly. The context of the debate i read as it doesn’t matter if the water is wet or dry, the outcome is still the towel it is spilled on ends up wet. By the same logic is there much point arguing if the government / economic view point are accurate in proclaiming, A or B, if the outcome is going to be C anyway? In some cases yes … because the difference between A or B helps define the root cause, but in other cases where A is just the laymans terms understanding that excludes a very niche scenario of B, not so much. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You are arguing, I simply showed an example from a posters comments that outlined what he believed to be stating the obvious, was in fact not as obvious as he might first of thought, giving a link for him to be able to check it himself. Nah. You think I'm disagreeing with you. I agree with what you've just written. What you've just described is the whole approach. Good faith debate relies on being about to make assertions that all parties accept to be broadly true and use that common ground as a basis for productive exchange on the matters at hand. That can't happen when one party insists on quibbling over the fine detail of the technical accuracy of however irrelevant points. "Water is wet", while inaccurate in strictly scientific terms, is a generally understood expression of an obvious and useful thing. It might make you feel clever to say "yeah but is it though, really, though?" and get our your back issue of New Scientist, and hey, maybe you even believe it's harmless, but what this kind of pedantry doesn't do is further any debate in a productive or meaningful sense. In essence what you saying is as long as you believe you are right and could possibly be right based on how you think, that is enough to conclude your view is perfectly legitimate and requires no further challenge. How would this rationale work with weights and measures? Scientists saying add about 21mg that is near enough or when you buy fuel, you wouldn’t be to happy with about the right amount and let’s not even think about making waterproof clothing
I read his point as context matters.
The rationale most often wouldn’t work with weights and measures because it’s something where the weight and measure is designed to provide specificity (is that even a word? It doesn’t seem correct now i see it :-s). And the weight and the measure most likely matters - if you are being charged for a pint of beer you want a pint of beer. If you need certain mg of medication you want it to be that mg of medication. (Maybe standardisation was a better way to put it).
However there will be some occasions where the context means it is less important. If the recipe says put in 200g of butter , its probably not going to entirely fall apart if you eyeball 1/5th of your kg block despite it scientifically probably not being 200g exactly.
The context of the debate i read as it doesn’t matter if the water is wet or dry, the outcome is still the towel it is spilled on ends up wet.
By the same logic is there much point arguing if the government / economic view point are accurate in proclaiming, A or B, if the outcome is going to be C anyway? In some cases yes … because the difference between A or B helps define the root cause, but in other cases where A is just the laymans terms understanding that excludes a very niche scenario of B, not so much. "Context does matter, but the context needs to be first understood for what it is, not what it is thought to be. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You've gone so far down the rabbit hole that you missed Notme's position of 'water can be considered wet or dry' He never argued over semantics at all "Do me a favour, grab yourself a dictionary and look up "semantics". If you then still don't see how that's what the entire discussion is about, or at least this part of it, do me a favour, grab yourself a basic English comprehension manual and start at chapter one. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I heard if Labour get into power frisbees will be made illegal. Any evidence for this? !!!" Boomerangs will be mandatory but the name will be changed to “uturners” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think we've found a new 'I'm always right' here, sorry Birldn, you've lost your crown. " Sorry I ain’t ready to let that go just yet. Happy to have a few apprentices though | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I heard if Labour get into power frisbees will be made illegal. Any evidence for this? !!!" The same amount of evidence as there is for "the UK will become Venezuela for twenty years in the event of a Labour government". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Context does matter, but the context needs to be first understood for what it is, not what it is thought to be. " Even better, yeah, let's systematically challenge the entire concept of contexts. That way nobody will ever be able to have a productive discussion as we'll all be far to busy trying and likely failing to establish a baseline of understanding. If anyone says anything you don't like you can just pretend they meant something really stupid and awful and criticise them for it, and if they complain then tell them they didn't understand the context for what it is as opposed to what they thought it to be. Whatever that means. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Context does matter, but the context needs to be first understood for what it is, not what it is thought to be. Even better, yeah, let's systematically challenge the entire concept of contexts. That way nobody will ever be able to have a productive discussion as we'll all be far to busy trying and likely failing to establish a baseline of understanding. If anyone says anything you don't like you can just pretend they meant something really stupid and awful and criticise them for it, and if they complain then tell them they didn't understand the context for what it is as opposed to what they thought it to be. Whatever that means." You are making a lot out of a simple example of how one thing can be thought of as obvious, but a little knowledge and research will go on to show it is not that obvious after all. Broaden the mind from the rabbit hole people tend to put themselves in when they haven’t considered other options exist or matter. Critical thinking is a gift, try it out? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I heard if Labour get into power frisbees will be made illegal. Any evidence for this? !!! Boomerangs will be mandatory but the name will be changed to “uturners”" Isn't that word reserved for politicians? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Context does matter, but the context needs to be first understood for what it is, not what it is thought to be. Even better, yeah, let's systematically challenge the entire concept of contexts. That way nobody will ever be able to have a productive discussion as we'll all be far to busy trying and likely failing to establish a baseline of understanding. If anyone says anything you don't like you can just pretend they meant something really stupid and awful and criticise them for it, and if they complain then tell them they didn't understand the context for what it is as opposed to what they thought it to be. Whatever that means. You are making a lot out of a simple example of how one thing can be thought of as obvious, but a little knowledge and research will go on to show it is not that obvious after all. Broaden the mind from the rabbit hole people tend to put themselves in when they haven’t considered other options exist or matter. Critical thinking is a gift, try it out?" I think you are both right here though just coming at it from opposite mindsets. “ one thing can be thought of as obvious, but a little knowledge and research will go on to show it is not that obvious after all.” That’s completely true. But in the context of the water is wet… most of the time it doesn’t really matter that its not scientifically true. When the general public say water is wet, vs water will make the towel wet… it means the same thing to them. Whereas someone with a scientific mindset doesn’t like the inaccuracy of how it has been articulated. Either way the towel got wet so surely the discussion should just move on to what can be done about that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Context does matter, but the context needs to be first understood for what it is, not what it is thought to be. Even better, yeah, let's systematically challenge the entire concept of contexts. That way nobody will ever be able to have a productive discussion as we'll all be far to busy trying and likely failing to establish a baseline of understanding. If anyone says anything you don't like you can just pretend they meant something really stupid and awful and criticise them for it, and if they complain then tell them they didn't understand the context for what it is as opposed to what they thought it to be. Whatever that means. You are making a lot out of a simple example of how one thing can be thought of as obvious, but a little knowledge and research will go on to show it is not that obvious after all. Broaden the mind from the rabbit hole people tend to put themselves in when they haven’t considered other options exist or matter. Critical thinking is a gift, try it out?" So, critical thinking, as in actual critical thinking, is not what the "do your research, broaden your mind from the rabbit hole" lot would have you believe. The reason I'm "making a lot" of your "simple example" is critical thinking. You used your "simple example" as an illustration of the fact that received wisdom is often bullshit, correct? Without critical thinking, people would take one look at your example and go "holy shit, water isn't wet? What other universally accepted truths aren't true? I must question everything!", which while attractive in a vague "free your mind" sense, isn't helpful at all. Critical thinking is all about contextual meaning, so the correct response is, "yeah, while scientifically the substance of water itself may not technically be wet, only things that touch water become wet, in the conversational everyday sense everyone understands what we mean by water being wet, and indeed that common understanding is useful to us in lots of ways, so getting tied up in a semantic discussion about the actual wetness of water has no benefit for now". So you see, you can supply critical thinking to arrive at a reasoned, balanced, useful conclusion without having to question any foundational understanding or invalidate any propositions, as long as - and this is critical - you're not overlooking the contextual meanings (e.g. in this case scientific, everyday), in order for example to imply that your opponent is a science-denier or in some way close-minded. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You've gone so far down the rabbit hole that you missed Notme's position of 'water can be considered wet or dry' He never argued over semantics at all
Do me a favour, grab yourself a dictionary and look up "semantics".
If you then still don't see how that's what the entire discussion is about, or at least this part of it, do me a favour, grab yourself a basic English comprehension manual and start at chapter one."Do me a favour and stop telling me what to do because I don't fit with your way of thinking. BTW, you didn't need to personally insult me on the other thread by mocking my weight, that's not a good look | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You've gone so far down the rabbit hole that you missed Notme's position of 'water can be considered wet or dry' He never argued over semantics at all
Do me a favour, grab yourself a dictionary and look up "semantics".
If you then still don't see how that's what the entire discussion is about, or at least this part of it, do me a favour, grab yourself a basic English comprehension manual and start at chapter one.
Do me a favour and stop telling me what to do because I don't fit with your way of thinking.
BTW, you didn't need to personally insult me on the other thread by mocking my weight, that's not a good look "I mean, quoting you above, "Maybe take a little step back and re-evaluate". I though we were at the telling each other what to do stage. Or do only you get to do that? Also it was a typo. I have no opinion of your physique. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Context does matter, but the context needs to be first understood for what it is, not what it is thought to be. Even better, yeah, let's systematically challenge the entire concept of contexts. That way nobody will ever be able to have a productive discussion as we'll all be far to busy trying and likely failing to establish a baseline of understanding. If anyone says anything you don't like you can just pretend they meant something really stupid and awful and criticise them for it, and if they complain then tell them they didn't understand the context for what it is as opposed to what they thought it to be. Whatever that means. You are making a lot out of a simple example of how one thing can be thought of as obvious, but a little knowledge and research will go on to show it is not that obvious after all. Broaden the mind from the rabbit hole people tend to put themselves in when they haven’t considered other options exist or matter. Critical thinking is a gift, try it out? So, critical thinking, as in actual critical thinking, is not what the "do your research, broaden your mind from the rabbit hole" lot would have you believe. The reason I'm "making a lot" of your "simple example" is critical thinking. You used your "simple example" as an illustration of the fact that received wisdom is often bullshit, correct? Without critical thinking, people would take one look at your example and go "holy shit, water isn't wet? What other universally accepted truths aren't true? I must question everything!", which while attractive in a vague "free your mind" sense, isn't helpful at all. Critical thinking is all about contextual meaning, so the correct response is, "yeah, while scientifically the substance of water itself may not technically be wet, only things that touch water become wet, in the conversational everyday sense everyone understands what we mean by water being wet, and indeed that common understanding is useful to us in lots of ways, so getting tied up in a semantic discussion about the actual wetness of water has no benefit for now". So you see, you can supply critical thinking to arrive at a reasoned, balanced, useful conclusion without having to question any foundational understanding or invalidate any propositions, as long as - and this is critical - you're not overlooking the contextual meanings (e.g. in this case scientific, everyday), in order for example to imply that your opponent is a science-denier or in some way close-minded." Now you have got to a position you agree is about thinking in context, put into action that thinking. Brexit does it exist today? Are we in or out of the EU? What can we do to ensure the transition is a painless as possible? What does good look like? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who is Jordan Peterson? an intellectual who is not afraid to speak his mind, who has had his own demons to deal with. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So Jordan Peterson says the UK will become Venezuela for twenty years in the event of a Labour government. Is he right? " Think about this ... if you were in Britain in the early 80s and someone told you what 2023 is like, pretty sure most would be very disappointed liberty wise | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"His comments means he’s not an intellectual Who is Jordan Peterson? an intellectual who is not afraid to speak his mind, who has had his own demons to deal with. " Do you believe an intellectual who says something you don't agree with, automatically loses his intellect by default? Out of interest what do you disagree with what he said exactly and why is he wrong? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Now you have got to a position you agree is about thinking in context" That's a really interesting interpretation of how the conversation went, but sure, go on. "Brexit does it exist today? Are we in or out of the EU? What can we do to ensure the transition is a painless as possible? What does good look like? " I'm struggling to see the point of your first two questions. Are you suggesting there are people who don't think Brexit is real and we're still in the EU? The third question depends wholly on your definition of the transition period. If you mean transition out of the EU, it's done so we're past the point of mitigating it, and if you mean the process of completely erasing any trace of legacy EU associations from UK business, that could be decades. Assuming it's the latter, the answers to that and the fourth question could fill a library. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Now you have got to a position you agree is about thinking in context That's a really interesting interpretation of how the conversation went, but sure, go on. Brexit does it exist today? Are we in or out of the EU? What can we do to ensure the transition is a painless as possible? What does good look like? I'm struggling to see the point of your first two questions. Are you suggesting there are people who don't think Brexit is real and we're still in the EU? The third question depends wholly on your definition of the transition period. If you mean transition out of the EU, it's done so we're past the point of mitigating it, and if you mean the process of completely erasing any trace of legacy EU associations from UK business, that could be decades. Assuming it's the latter, the answers to that and the fourth question could fill a library." The first 2 questions are clearly there to prompt the answer that brexit no longer exists and we are not part of the EU. With that in mind do we really need to keep referring to it as if it is still alive and well? We should be moving into discussions that have value, not continually complaining about something that has passed. The question of transition and what does good look like, for me it would be a plan to engage with the EU in a more positive way, and start to build a longer term strategy of obtaining some of the things that people say are a loss from leaving the EU. How do we get FoM, can it be done? That seems a good start and would help ease the frustrations. These types of discussions would be a positive step away from the endless whining about brexit, in my opinion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We should be moving into discussions that have value, not continually complaining about something that has passed. " This is what I continually say. However it's very hard to move forward and start to plan when our politicians are pretending that the problem doesn't exist. We can't start to move forward while everyone is still pretending it was a great idea to leave the EU with "no downsides". Surely step 1 has to be analysing all the impacts of leaving the EU, then starting to mitigate against them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The question of transition and what does good look like, for me it would be a plan to engage with the EU in a more positive way, and start to build a longer term strategy of obtaining some of the things that people say are a loss from leaving the EU. How do we get FoM, can it be done? That seems a good start and would help ease the frustrations. " You'll get absolutely no argument from me there. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We should be moving into discussions that have value, not continually complaining about something that has passed. This is what I continually say. However it's very hard to move forward and start to plan when our politicians are pretending that the problem doesn't exist. We can't start to move forward while everyone is still pretending it was a great idea to leave the EU with "no downsides". Surely step 1 has to be analysing all the impacts of leaving the EU, then starting to mitigate against them. " It is in my opinion far to early to understand the impact or benefits of brexit from a trade perspective in particular. However, I think we have the space and ground now to look at losses people are feeling outside of trade, such as FoM, how much of a problem is it and can it be restored in any way. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You've gone so far down the rabbit hole that you missed Notme's position of 'water can be considered wet or dry' He never argued over semantics at all
Do me a favour, grab yourself a dictionary and look up "semantics".
If you then still don't see how that's what the entire discussion is about, or at least this part of it, do me a favour, grab yourself a basic English comprehension manual and start at chapter one.
Do me a favour and stop telling me what to do because I don't fit with your way of thinking.
BTW, you didn't need to personally insult me on the other thread by mocking my weight, that's not a good look
I mean, quoting you above, "Maybe take a little step back and re-evaluate". I though we were at the telling each other what to do stage. Or do only you get to do that?
Also it was a typo. I have no opinion of your physique."Got you. Maybe chill is the same as telling someone to pick up a dictionary and mocking BASIC comprehension. And you complain about semantics
Of course it was a typo, says every single person who is caught out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Of course it was a typo, says every single person who is caught out. " Happens to you often, does it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Happy 2024. This thread reinforced some of my views on the world. It's not information or definitions that matters but what we will do with it. Saying water is wet is useful for explaining why I need a coat. The real scientific doesn't matter here, but could when making safety laws about wetness. Drilling into semantics is a great way of holding onto a win when it's a loss. We see that here enough. Metaphors etc are a great way of distracting from the point. Imo it's a false equivalence between a statement like "water is wet" and a statement about how policial parties act and their effect on the economy. I can see why some don't offer "proof" because it can be a distraction. But also, it's poor form to make a statement and almost claim it's a non debatable fact such as the world is round. That statement has been created from verifiable evidence that has allowed to become fact. To side swerve asking for evidence of something that is not a generally known/accepted fact is poor form. Especially of you then ask for counter evidence. " I take your point, but it assumes everyone is arguing in good faith. The reason that after a point I've refused to play along with constant demands for proof of this or that point is I know full well the person making the demand isn't asking for information they can fairly evaluate and then change their viewpoint or not. They're after fodder to apply the "water isn't wet" principle to. I forget which thread where the subject got onto the racism of Nigel Farage, and the familiar extreme-right trope of demanding proof that a person whose entire stock-in-trade is veiling racism in vague language to make it acceptable to the general public, is actually a racist. I'm not saying any of the people demanding said proof are themselves racists, or even believe that he isn't. I am saying that there is a point beyond which people are trying to, as you say, hold onto a win when it's a loss. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Happy 2024. This thread reinforced some of my views on the world. It's not information or definitions that matters but what we will do with it. Saying water is wet is useful for explaining why I need a coat. The real scientific doesn't matter here, but could when making safety laws about wetness. Drilling into semantics is a great way of holding onto a win when it's a loss. We see that here enough. Metaphors etc are a great way of distracting from the point. Imo it's a false equivalence between a statement like "water is wet" and a statement about how policial parties act and their effect on the economy. I can see why some don't offer "proof" because it can be a distraction. But also, it's poor form to make a statement and almost claim it's a non debatable fact such as the world is round. That statement has been created from verifiable evidence that has allowed to become fact. To side swerve asking for evidence of something that is not a generally known/accepted fact is poor form. Especially of you then ask for counter evidence. I take your point, but it assumes everyone is arguing in good faith. The reason that after a point I've refused to play along with constant demands for proof of this or that point is I know full well the person making the demand isn't asking for information they can fairly evaluate and then change their viewpoint or not. They're after fodder to apply the "water isn't wet" principle to. I forget which thread where the subject got onto the racism of Nigel Farage, and the familiar extreme-right trope of demanding proof that a person whose entire stock-in-trade is veiling racism in vague language to make it acceptable to the general public, is actually a racist. I'm not saying any of the people demanding said proof are themselves racists, or even believe that he isn't. I am saying that there is a point beyond which people are trying to, as you say, hold onto a win when it's a loss." Farage has played out many times in this forum, and what tends to happen is very simple. A person calls Farage a racist regardless of the story Coutts being a memorable one, I think it is reasonable to ask for evidence of that seeing as how strong an accusation it is. The evidence I have seen is more dislike than hard proof that is clearly racism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We should be moving into discussions that have value, not continually complaining about something that has passed. This is what I continually say. However it's very hard to move forward and start to plan when our politicians are pretending that the problem doesn't exist. We can't start to move forward while everyone is still pretending it was a great idea to leave the EU with "no downsides". Surely step 1 has to be analysing all the impacts of leaving the EU, then starting to mitigate against them. It is in my opinion far to early to understand the impact or benefits of brexit from a trade perspective in particular. However, I think we have the space and ground now to look at losses people are feeling outside of trade, such as FoM, how much of a problem is it and can it be restored in any way. " We have understanding of a lot of the impacts and problems caused by Brexit. This is what we should be focussing on. Thus far no one has found any of the benefits, no one has found any evidence that there might be some benefits, we even had a ministry dedicated to finding Brexit opportunities, they resorted to asking Sun readers. No joy. Maybe we need our politicians to stop pretending, and get on with it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Happy 2024. This thread reinforced some of my views on the world. It's not information or definitions that matters but what we will do with it. Saying water is wet is useful for explaining why I need a coat. The real scientific doesn't matter here, but could when making safety laws about wetness. Drilling into semantics is a great way of holding onto a win when it's a loss. We see that here enough. Metaphors etc are a great way of distracting from the point. Imo it's a false equivalence between a statement like "water is wet" and a statement about how policial parties act and their effect on the economy. I can see why some don't offer "proof" because it can be a distraction. But also, it's poor form to make a statement and almost claim it's a non debatable fact such as the world is round. That statement has been created from verifiable evidence that has allowed to become fact. To side swerve asking for evidence of something that is not a generally known/accepted fact is poor form. Especially of you then ask for counter evidence. I take your point, but it assumes everyone is arguing in good faith. The reason that after a point I've refused to play along with constant demands for proof of this or that point is I know full well the person making the demand isn't asking for information they can fairly evaluate and then change their viewpoint or not. They're after fodder to apply the "water isn't wet" principle to. I forget which thread where the subject got onto the racism of Nigel Farage, and the familiar extreme-right trope of demanding proof that a person whose entire stock-in-trade is veiling racism in vague language to make it acceptable to the general public, is actually a racist. I'm not saying any of the people demanding said proof are themselves racists, or even believe that he isn't. I am saying that there is a point beyond which people are trying to, as you say, hold onto a win when it's a loss. Farage has played out many times in this forum, and what tends to happen is very simple. A person calls Farage a racist regardless of the story Coutts being a memorable one, I think it is reasonable to ask for evidence of that seeing as how strong an accusation it is. The evidence I have seen is more dislike than hard proof that is clearly racism. " Are you suggesting that either. A. Farage isn't racist at heart, he just used racist rhetoric during the referendum and at other times to further his causes. Or. B. He didn't use racist rhetoric? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Farage has played out many times in this forum, and what tends to happen is very simple. A person calls Farage a racist regardless of the story Coutts being a memorable one, I think it is reasonable to ask for evidence of that seeing as how strong an accusation it is. The evidence I have seen is more dislike than hard proof that is clearly racism. " I'm sure someone must have already referenced the Adam Bienkov piece, but either way I'm going to refer to it here. Here's the link, if anyone wants to read the text or check Bienkov's sources: https://www.adambienkov.co.uk/p/nigel-farage-and-the-taboo-of-calling So, I'm sure some people would look at these and say they personally have a higher standard for calling someone a racist; I don't. I'm also aware that some people will want to get into the definition of what racism is - I'm not interested in having that particular debate because, frankly, I suspect anyone who has an interest in limiting definitions of prejudice. Anyway, to business: - On LBC in 2014 he admitted to not wanting to live next to Romanians. When pushed on his distinction between Romanian foreigners and for example his own then-wife and children, who are German, he said "you know the difference". - In his 2014 UKIP conference speech he claimed that there are parts of England where English is no longer spoken. He said that such a community would be unfit for his family. - Following the speech he related an experience of a train journey where he felt "uncomfortable" that for part of it he heard foreign languages being spoken. - In 2015 following the Paris terror attack, Farage said that British Muslims have "split loyalties" - In 2017 on his LBC show Farage repeated tropes about the financial and political influence of the Jews in the United States. Not referenced by Bienkov but easily available with a quick Google you'll find the patchy membership of Farage's "Europe of Freedom and Democracy" group he founded as an MEP. Despite making pledges to avoid alliances with any far-right parties, he yet joined forces with members of a Swedish Nationalist group founded by white supremacists including a former member of the SS. Also invited to join was an MP of the French National Front. But his biggest partners in the EDP were Lega Nord, the EDP's co-President being the Lega Nord MEP Francesco Speroni who, in 2011, defended the islamophobic views of Andres Brievik. Another Lega Nord MP in 2014 blacked up in Italy's Parliament to protest the benefits that were paid to minorities. The EDP's website featured a host of anti-Islamic quotes from others of the groups membership. I mean, I could go on. As I said, if people don't feel that Farage's willingness to perpetuate antisemitic conspiracies, his openness to hopping in bed with extreme-right parties, his explicit suspicion of Muslims or simply his inability to be around Eastern-Europeans without crapping himself is in any way evidence of racism then they're entitled to their opinion. But I would ask what their actual threshold for considering someone a racist would be, and why. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Preston couple556 that is some compelling evidence though I suspect still falls mostly into the plausible deniability bucket. Farage aside though, we do have a problem of society finding it difficult to bring up and discuss difficult subjects. And there is a tendency from some quarters to try and shut down difficult conversations. But I think they need to be had otherwise you disenfranchise those on the fringes who are undecided on topics. So, just for controversial discussion sake... Q. Should the UK allow the building of mosques? Q. Should the UK allow for polygamous marriage? Q. Should the UK ban face coverings for women working in citizen facing public sector roles? Q. Should the taxpayer pick up the tab for translation requirements in the public sector? Etc " Hey! PrestonCouple556 are our next-door neighbours!
Those are good questions but possibly as a result of my leanings I don't find them difficult.
1. Allow building mosques, yes. As long as they, and all other religious buildings of any faith, are privately-funded and treated like any other business (i.e. fully taxed etc.).
2. Allow for polygamous marriage, yes. But also we need full legal parity between married and unmarried. Relationships should not be government-sanctioned.
3. Ban face-coverings, no, with the exception of security or safety requirements. Dress-code requirements should be the exception, not the norm. Controlling the appearance of your employees is stupid.
4. Tax-funded translation, yes. "Integration", whatever that really means, should be a two-way street. If we expect people who come to our country to learn our language, we should encourage them to do so by having them meet people who speak both their language and ours. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Preston couple556 that is some compelling evidence though I suspect still falls mostly into the plausible deniability bucket. Farage aside though, we do have a problem of society finding it difficult to bring up and discuss difficult subjects. And there is a tendency from some quarters to try and shut down difficult conversations. But I think they need to be had otherwise you disenfranchise those on the fringes who are undecided on topics. So, just for controversial discussion sake... Q. Should the UK allow the building of mosques? Q. Should the UK allow for polygamous marriage? Q. Should the UK ban face coverings for women working in citizen facing public sector roles? Q. Should the taxpayer pick up the tab for translation requirements in the public sector? Etc Hey! PrestonCouple556 are our next-door neighbours!
Those are good questions but possibly as a result of my leanings I don't find them difficult.
1. Allow building mosques, yes. As long as they, and all other religious buildings of any faith, are privately-funded and treated like any other business (i.e. fully taxed etc.).
2. Allow for polygamous marriage, yes. But also we need full legal parity between married and unmarried. Relationships should not be government-sanctioned.
3. Ban face-coverings, no, with the exception of security or safety requirements. Dress-code requirements should be the exception, not the norm. Controlling the appearance of your employees is stupid.
4. Tax-funded translation, yes. "Integration", whatever that really means, should be a two-way street. If we expect people who come to our country to learn our language, we should encourage them to do so by having them meet people who speak both their language and ours."How do you think the demographic will change if we allow religious buildings to built as long as the money is there to do it? How will that decision impact cities / towns / villages? How can a person show concern over changing demographics, infrastructure and networks without being branded a racist? You are not a fan of Brexit, because it removed your ability to do x or y and changed your landscape, how do you manage those same sentiments to a local population who fear the same changes? I’m not saying one thing is right or wrong, I want to understand why you believe it so easy to absorb change when evidence points to the opposite | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"2. Allow for polygamous marriage, yes. But also we need full legal parity between married and unmarried. Relationships should not be government-sanctioned." This might be going off at a tangent, but can you expand on this. What sort of legal parity do you think doesn't exist, but should? Without state recognised relationships, how do we determine the difference between those that are just getting to know each other, and those that are a couple with legal rights and responsibilities? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" How do you think the demographic will change if we allow religious buildings to built as long as the money is there to do it? How will that decision impact cities / towns / villages? How can a person show concern over changing demographics, infrastructure and networks without being branded a racist? You are not a fan of Brexit, because it removed your ability to do x or y and changed your landscape, how do you manage those same sentiments to a local population who fear the same changes? I’m not saying one thing is right or wrong, I want to understand why you believe it so easy to absorb change when evidence points to the opposite " I don't know how the demographic will change, or indeed to what extent it will change. All I know is demographics have always changed. Yes, there will be an impact on cities, towns and villages, just like there's an impact when you build a giant shopping mall or a football stadium or a massive new road or a sprawling housing development. A person can show their concern over changing demographics, infrastructure and networks without being branded a racist by not being a racist. I realise that sounds facile but it's true. People who aren't racists manage to discuss these things all the time without being branded racists. Re: fear of change, the thing about local populations being concerned about the effects of e.g. people from a specific ethnic group becoming more populous in their area, the key is communication. The more people engage with each other the more they realise that people from all over the world are basically the same. The same priorities, the same cares, the same worries. They want to look after their families, make a good living, have a nice home, have a good time. The details change, the principles are the same. I don't believe it's easy. It's very very difficult to get people to talk to each other especially when you've got people like Farage telling you foreigners make him clutch his purse on the locomotive, and a larger political class obsessed with destroying everything that brings communities together. But it is the answer, so we have to keep at it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This might be going off at a tangent, but can you expand on this. What sort of legal parity do you think doesn't exist, but should? Without state recognised relationships, how do we determine the difference between those that are just getting to know each other, and those that are a couple with legal rights and responsibilities?" Well, there's nothing really that significant, it's all in the detail of stuff like inheritance and insurance premiums, that kind of stuff. Married couples enjoy very slight perks as compared to unmarried couples, by design, because historically marriage has been incentivised. I'm not proposing to elevate unmarried couples to the same legal status as married couples. I'm proposing to trivialise the institution to the point where married couples have essentially the same legal status as two people who have never met. I say that as a married person. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This might be going off at a tangent, but can you expand on this. What sort of legal parity do you think doesn't exist, but should? Without state recognised relationships, how do we determine the difference between those that are just getting to know each other, and those that are a couple with legal rights and responsibilities?" "Well, there's nothing really that significant, it's all in the detail of stuff like inheritance and insurance premiums, that kind of stuff. Married couples enjoy very slight perks as compared to unmarried couples, by design, because historically marriage has been incentivised. I'm not proposing to elevate unmarried couples to the same legal status as married couples. I'm proposing to trivialise the institution to the point where married couples have essentially the same legal status as two people who have never met. I say that as a married person." That all makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the reply. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This might be going off at a tangent, but can you expand on this. What sort of legal parity do you think doesn't exist, but should? Without state recognised relationships, how do we determine the difference between those that are just getting to know each other, and those that are a couple with legal rights and responsibilities? Well, there's nothing really that significant, it's all in the detail of stuff like inheritance and insurance premiums, that kind of stuff. Married couples enjoy very slight perks as compared to unmarried couples, by design, because historically marriage has been incentivised. I'm not proposing to elevate unmarried couples to the same legal status as married couples. I'm proposing to trivialise the institution to the point where married couples have essentially the same legal status as two people who have never met. I say that as a married person. That all makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the reply." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Re: fear of change, the thing about local populations being concerned about the effects of e.g. people from a specific ethnic group becoming more populous in their area, the key is communication. The more people engage with each other the more they realise that people from all over the world are basically the same. The same priorities, the same cares, the same worries. They want to look after their families, make a good living, have a nice home, have a good time. The details change, the principles are the same. " I don't agree with this. Different cultures have different values. Depending upon how similar/different those values are, cultural conflicts may or may not raise. It's not a matter of race. People from same race but different religions for instance, could have these conflicts. I come from India, which has been grappling with multiculturalism for decades, with each state having its own cultural identity and numerous religions added to the mix. For this to work, you need something that brings these people together. People still feel strongly about national and state level identities. These identities and respect for the constitution pushes down religious identity to a secondary concern. With more people migrating across states, we are already seeing so many rifts between people from different states. In Western countries, there is nothing which unites people. For religious people, their religious identities are stronger than their national identities. Why did Denmark have to implement blasphemy laws if all these people cared about was a better living? It's because for some people, their religious values are more important than Denmark's values of freedom and secularism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Re: fear of change, the thing about local populations being concerned about the effects of e.g. people from a specific ethnic group becoming more populous in their area, the key is communication. The more people engage with each other the more they realise that people from all over the world are basically the same. The same priorities, the same cares, the same worries. They want to look after their families, make a good living, have a nice home, have a good time. The details change, the principles are the same. I don't agree with this. Different cultures have different values. Depending upon how similar/different those values are, cultural conflicts may or may not raise. It's not a matter of race. People from same race but different religions for instance, could have these conflicts. I come from India, which has been grappling with multiculturalism for decades, with each state having its own cultural identity and numerous religions added to the mix. For this to work, you need something that brings these people together. People still feel strongly about national and state level identities. These identities and respect for the constitution pushes down religious identity to a secondary concern. With more people migrating across states, we are already seeing so many rifts between people from different states. In Western countries, there is nothing which unites people. For religious people, their religious identities are stronger than their national identities. Why did Denmark have to implement blasphemy laws if all these people cared about was a better living? It's because for some people, their religious values are more important than Denmark's values of freedom and secularism." With respect, no it isn't. The law specifically bans the defacement or destruction of religious symbols in public was passed because people were burning Qurans in front of embassies as acts of extremist protest, and as big a fan as I am of free speech, it's literally a threat to national security. Your other points are true, but at a macro-social level. Cultures have different values, it's true, but individual people's values tend to differ far, far less. My point is integration relies on interaction and co-operation between different communities on a personal level. Where that happens, you have more harmony as people get to know one another as fellow human beings. Where it doesn't, people only see other cultures as a faceless mass and you get conflict. As an example, if you look at the polling data in the UK for which areas are most concerned about immigration, it's usually rural, predominantly white-British areas. People in urban areas who live among people from all kinds of different cultures and ethnic groups tend to see immigration as much less of a problem. The problem over here is there are very few mechanisms to promote cultural exchange, and basically no appetite to create any. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Preston couple556 that is some compelling evidence though I suspect still falls mostly into the plausible deniability bucket. Farage aside though, we do have a problem of society finding it difficult to bring up and discuss difficult subjects. And there is a tendency from some quarters to try and shut down difficult conversations. But I think they need to be had otherwise you disenfranchise those on the fringes who are undecided on topics. So, just for controversial discussion sake... Q. Should the UK allow the building of mosques? Q. Should the UK allow for polygamous marriage? Q. Should the UK ban face coverings for women working in citizen facing public sector roles? Q. Should the taxpayer pick up the tab for translation requirements in the public sector? Etc " The evidence is compelling if you take parts of quotes/interviews and shrink them to suit. However, the main issue with that post is 'I'm not interested in anyone else's opinion if it doesn't match mine'. In fact, that's the main issue with both the left and right, full stop. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Preston couple556 that is some compelling evidence though I suspect still falls mostly into the plausible deniability bucket. Farage aside though, we do have a problem of society finding it difficult to bring up and discuss difficult subjects. And there is a tendency from some quarters to try and shut down difficult conversations. But I think they need to be had otherwise you disenfranchise those on the fringes who are undecided on topics. So, just for controversial discussion sake... Q. Should the UK allow the building of mosques? Q. Should the UK allow for polygamous marriage? Q. Should the UK ban face coverings for women working in citizen facing public sector roles? Q. Should the taxpayer pick up the tab for translation requirements in the public sector? Etc " Q1. Personally I'd love to see an end to religious buildings, they're nothing but excuses for terror (all religions). Q2. Marriages may as well turn to 'business' contracts, especially if we allow polygamy. Q3. Ban all face coverings, including the stupid fucking balaclavas kids wear. Q4. Absolutely not. If someone cannot speak the language, they should teach themselves before applying for a role which requires the language spoken. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Preston couple556 that is some compelling evidence though I suspect still falls mostly into the plausible deniability bucket. Farage aside though, we do have a problem of society finding it difficult to bring up and discuss difficult subjects. And there is a tendency from some quarters to try and shut down difficult conversations. But I think they need to be had otherwise you disenfranchise those on the fringes who are undecided on topics. So, just for controversial discussion sake... Q. Should the UK allow the building of mosques? Q. Should the UK allow for polygamous marriage? Q. Should the UK ban face coverings for women working in citizen facing public sector roles? Q. Should the taxpayer pick up the tab for translation requirements in the public sector? Etc The evidence is compelling if you take parts of quotes/interviews and shrink them to suit. However, the main issue with that post is 'I'm not interested in anyone else's opinion if it doesn't match mine'. In fact, that's the main issue with both the left and right, full stop. " Well as a fence sitting centrist (like me lol) you would say that! Any Feisty it is time to chill and enjoy the fact that Mrs Feisty is/was on page one of hot pics. You must be in line for some serious action in January so WTF you doing sparring in the politics forum? Get focused on what really matters...a potential shagfest should bring out some positivity | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Preston couple556 that is some compelling evidence though I suspect still falls mostly into the plausible deniability bucket. Farage aside though, we do have a problem of society finding it difficult to bring up and discuss difficult subjects. And there is a tendency from some quarters to try and shut down difficult conversations. But I think they need to be had otherwise you disenfranchise those on the fringes who are undecided on topics. So, just for controversial discussion sake... Q. Should the UK allow the building of mosques? Q. Should the UK allow for polygamous marriage? Q. Should the UK ban face coverings for women working in citizen facing public sector roles? Q. Should the taxpayer pick up the tab for translation requirements in the public sector? Etc The evidence is compelling if you take parts of quotes/interviews and shrink them to suit. However, the main issue with that post is 'I'm not interested in anyone else's opinion if it doesn't match mine'. In fact, that's the main issue with both the left and right, full stop. Well as a fence sitting centrist (like me lol) you would say that! Any Feisty it is time to chill and enjoy the fact that Mrs Feisty is/was on page one of hot pics. You must be in line for some serious action in January so WTF you doing sparring in the politics forum? Get focused on what really matters...a potential shagfest should bring out some positivity "I'm not a centrist. I'm most certainly a Tory (apart from never having voted for them ).
I have lots of positivity mate. This is just time killing, I love a bit of sparring in the chambers | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Preston couple556 that is some compelling evidence though I suspect still falls mostly into the plausible deniability bucket. Farage aside though, we do have a problem of society finding it difficult to bring up and discuss difficult subjects. And there is a tendency from some quarters to try and shut down difficult conversations. But I think they need to be had otherwise you disenfranchise those on the fringes who are undecided on topics. So, just for controversial discussion sake... Q. Should the UK allow the building of mosques? Q. Should the UK allow for polygamous marriage? Q. Should the UK ban face coverings for women working in citizen facing public sector roles? Q. Should the taxpayer pick up the tab for translation requirements in the public sector? Etc The evidence is compelling if you take parts of quotes/interviews and shrink them to suit. However, the main issue with that post is 'I'm not interested in anyone else's opinion if it doesn't match mine'. In fact, that's the main issue with both the left and right, full stop. Well as a fence sitting centrist (like me lol) you would say that! Any Feisty it is time to chill and enjoy the fact that Mrs Feisty is/was on page one of hot pics. You must be in line for some serious action in January so WTF you doing sparring in the politics forum? Get focused on what really matters...a potential shagfest should bring out some positivity
I'm not a centrist. I'm most certainly a Tory (apart from never having voted for them ).
I have lots of positivity mate. This is just time killing, I love a bit of sparring in the chambers "Shhhh don’t tell them you aren’t really a Tory! My observation is we spend too much time in these forums. Too much time arguing with people (although I still chuckle when an argument ensues and the profile avatars are full of cock and ass etc, all rather surreal). Make love not war and all that. I’m off to oggle Mrs Feist lol (oh and good to see you finally put a pic with you on there, albeit rather bashful - be proud, let it hand out!)  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Preston couple556 that is some compelling evidence though I suspect still falls mostly into the plausible deniability bucket. Farage aside though, we do have a problem of society finding it difficult to bring up and discuss difficult subjects. And there is a tendency from some quarters to try and shut down difficult conversations. But I think they need to be had otherwise you disenfranchise those on the fringes who are undecided on topics. So, just for controversial discussion sake... Q. Should the UK allow the building of mosques? Q. Should the UK allow for polygamous marriage? Q. Should the UK ban face coverings for women working in citizen facing public sector roles? Q. Should the taxpayer pick up the tab for translation requirements in the public sector? Etc The evidence is compelling if you take parts of quotes/interviews and shrink them to suit. However, the main issue with that post is 'I'm not interested in anyone else's opinion if it doesn't match mine'. In fact, that's the main issue with both the left and right, full stop. Well as a fence sitting centrist (like me lol) you would say that! Any Feisty it is time to chill and enjoy the fact that Mrs Feisty is/was on page one of hot pics. You must be in line for some serious action in January so WTF you doing sparring in the politics forum? Get focused on what really matters...a potential shagfest should bring out some positivity
I'm not a centrist. I'm most certainly a Tory (apart from never having voted for them ).
I have lots of positivity mate. This is just time killing, I love a bit of sparring in the chambers
Shhhh don’t tell them you aren’t really a Tory!
My observation is we spend too much time in these forums. Too much time arguing with people (although I still chuckle when an argument ensues and the profile avatars are full of cock and ass etc, all rather surreal). Make love not war and all that.
I’m off to oggle Mrs Feist lol (oh and good to see you finally put a pic with you on there, albeit rather bashful - be proud, let it hand out!) "It's here or fb/twitter. It's nice to pass the time, and I barely watch TV 
If you're gonna oggle her pics, I hope you at least fab them BTW, there's a fair few pics of me (in friends) but let's face it, she's the main draw | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Preston couple556 that is some compelling evidence though I suspect still falls mostly into the plausible deniability bucket. Farage aside though, we do have a problem of society finding it difficult to bring up and discuss difficult subjects. And there is a tendency from some quarters to try and shut down difficult conversations. But I think they need to be had otherwise you disenfranchise those on the fringes who are undecided on topics. So, just for controversial discussion sake... Q. Should the UK allow the building of mosques? Q. Should the UK allow for polygamous marriage? Q. Should the UK ban face coverings for women working in citizen facing public sector roles? Q. Should the taxpayer pick up the tab for translation requirements in the public sector? Etc The evidence is compelling if you take parts of quotes/interviews and shrink them to suit. However, the main issue with that post is 'I'm not interested in anyone else's opinion if it doesn't match mine'. In fact, that's the main issue with both the left and right, full stop. Well as a fence sitting centrist (like me lol) you would say that! Any Feisty it is time to chill and enjoy the fact that Mrs Feisty is/was on page one of hot pics. You must be in line for some serious action in January so WTF you doing sparring in the politics forum? Get focused on what really matters...a potential shagfest should bring out some positivity
I'm not a centrist. I'm most certainly a Tory (apart from never having voted for them ).
I have lots of positivity mate. This is just time killing, I love a bit of sparring in the chambers
Shhhh don’t tell them you aren’t really a Tory!
My observation is we spend too much time in these forums. Too much time arguing with people (although I still chuckle when an argument ensues and the profile avatars are full of cock and ass etc, all rather surreal). Make love not war and all that.
I’m off to oggle Mrs Feist lol (oh and good to see you finally put a pic with you on there, albeit rather bashful - be proud, let it hand out!)
It's here or fb/twitter. It's nice to pass the time, and I barely watch TV
If you're gonna oggle her pics, I hope you at least fab them BTW, there's a fair few pics of me (in friends) but let's face it, she's the main draw "You need to have a read in the swinger advice forum. Couples want to see both partners. Stop being bashful and get that pasty white male tory body on display | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The evidence is compelling if you take parts of quotes/interviews and shrink them to suit. However, the main issue with that post is 'I'm not interested in anyone else's opinion if it doesn't match mine'. In fact, that's the main issue with both the left and right, full stop. " Since we're liberally reinterpreting what the other has said, you're correct, the evidence of his racism is compelling when you quote him. I note you don't address his habit of choosing to sit next to white supremacists and sundry neofascists, despite promising not to do so. He's spent quite a lot of his career claiming to have distanced himself from racists, hasn't he. Ultimately I suspect the real issue is Farage is pretending very hard to not be a racist, and some of us have fallen for it. Or chosen to fall for it. If you re-read what I actually wrote, instead of making up your own version of it, you'll see that what I've done is define the parameters of what I am and am not open to discussing. I'm literally asking people to explain why the above information doesn't sound their racist alarm. What I won't do is argue with people who want to narrow the definition of racism until it barely even applies to guys in Hugo Boss uniforms. Because there's only one reason they want to do that. Happy to have cleared that up for you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The evidence is compelling if you take parts of quotes/interviews and shrink them to suit. However, the main issue with that post is 'I'm not interested in anyone else's opinion if it doesn't match mine'. In fact, that's the main issue with both the left and right, full stop. Since we're liberally reinterpreting what the other has said, you're correct, the evidence of his racism is compelling when you quote him. I note you don't address his habit of choosing to sit next to white supremacists and sundry neofascists, despite promising not to do so. He's spent quite a lot of his career claiming to have distanced himself from racists, hasn't he. Ultimately I suspect the real issue is Farage is pretending very hard to not be a racist, and some of us have fallen for it. Or chosen to fall for it. If you re-read what I actually wrote, instead of making up your own version of it, you'll see that what I've done is define the parameters of what I am and am not open to discussing. I'm literally asking people to explain why the above information doesn't sound their racist alarm. What I won't do is argue with people who want to narrow the definition of racism until it barely even applies to guys in Hugo Boss uniforms. Because there's only one reason they want to do that. Happy to have cleared that up for you." Liberally reinterpreting? You're actual words 'I'm also aware that some people will want to get into the definition of what racism is - I'm not interested in having that particular debate because, frankly, I suspect anyone who has an interest in limiting definitions of prejudice' So you're only interested in discussion if it falls within the parameters YOU set. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Liberally reinterpreting? You're actual words 'I'm also aware that some people will want to get into the definition of what racism is - I'm not interested in having that particular debate because, frankly, I suspect anyone who has an interest in limiting definitions of prejudice' So you're only interested in discussion if it falls within the parameters YOU set. " Correct. Those parameters are "I don't argue with racists". Everything else is fine. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Liberally reinterpreting? You're actual words 'I'm also aware that some people will want to get into the definition of what racism is - I'm not interested in having that particular debate because, frankly, I suspect anyone who has an interest in limiting definitions of prejudice' So you're only interested in discussion if it falls within the parameters YOU set. Correct. Those parameters are "I don't argue with racists". Everything else is fine." And hence my point stands. If someone has a different set of parameters to you, you're not interested. That doesn't make for open discourse. It's no drama, but it does fuel the divide. This is typical of both left and right. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And hence my point stands. If someone has a different set of parameters to you, you're not interested. That doesn't make for open discourse. It's no drama, but it does fuel the divide. This is typical of both left and right." Yeah, I mean, we're not talking people with a contrasting view on the outcomes of fiscal policy here. We're talking conspiracy theorists. You're welcome to your opinion that not engaging with people who literally believe there is an ethnic hierarchy of genetic quality within the human species is "fuelling the divide". My opinion is that such people aren't interested in bridging divides. Can we at least agree that we know what they ARE interested in? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread seems to be focusing on the messenger rather than the message. So what if Labour reprise their 70's top rate tax band of 83% (98% on some categories)? How would you high rollers feel about that?" I would sell up and emigrate. That is (and was) completely punitive and unnecessary. The state should never take more than the taxpayer is allowed to keep. It won’t happen though. Different times and it would be political suicide. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread seems to be focusing on the messenger rather than the message. So what if Labour reprise their 70's top rate tax band of 83% (98% on some categories)? How would you high rollers feel about that?" That's how it works. Always attack the messenger. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And hence my point stands. If someone has a different set of parameters to you, you're not interested. That doesn't make for open discourse. It's no drama, but it does fuel the divide. This is typical of both left and right. Yeah, I mean, we're not talking people with a contrasting view on the outcomes of fiscal policy here. We're talking conspiracy theorists. You're welcome to your opinion that not engaging with people who literally believe there is an ethnic hierarchy of genetic quality within the human species is "fuelling the divide". My opinion is that such people aren't interested in bridging divides. Can we at least agree that we know what they ARE interested in?" I doubt it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I doubt it. " Fair enough. I guess it's clear what to conclude from that. Bye now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I doubt it. Fair enough. I guess it's clear what to conclude from that. Bye now." Is it? You claim these people are conspiracy theorists. Then you claim you know what their aims are. That's a conspiracy theory in itself. The only thing I can take from this is, you're right and anyone who sees things differently is wrong. We come across it quite often. Anyway, this has gotten quite boring now, bye now | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread seems to be focusing on the messenger rather than the message. So what if Labour reprise their 70's top rate tax band of 83% (98% on some categories)? How would you high rollers feel about that?" Firstly, it's extremely unlikely. Secondly, the "high rollers" are more likely to have their funds safe in the Cayman Islands etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wait! What? Santa isn’t real "Glad no children are in here | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread seems to be focusing on the messenger rather than the message. So what if Labour reprise their 70's top rate tax band of 83% (98% on some categories)? How would you high rollers feel about that? Firstly, it's extremely unlikely. Secondly, the "high rollers" are more likely to have their funds safe in the Cayman Islands etc." So, why would we not support this, if the high rollers have accountants to mitigate this tax and the median person will never earn that yearly amount. Sounds like a win win | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread seems to be focusing on the messenger rather than the message. So what if Labour reprise their 70's top rate tax band of 83% (98% on some categories)? How would you high rollers feel about that? Firstly, it's extremely unlikely. Secondly, the "high rollers" are more likely to have their funds safe in the Cayman Islands etc. So, why would we not support this, if the high rollers have accountants to mitigate this tax and the median person will never earn that yearly amount. Sounds like a win win " It's not high rollers we need to be worrying about its BR and 40% payers that are struggling. I doubt labour would raise them significantly but any raise will further impact these lower and middle earners. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread seems to be focusing on the messenger rather than the message. So what if Labour reprise their 70's top rate tax band of 83% (98% on some categories)? How would you high rollers feel about that? Firstly, it's extremely unlikely. Secondly, the "high rollers" are more likely to have their funds safe in the Cayman Islands etc. So, why would we not support this, if the high rollers have accountants to mitigate this tax and the median person will never earn that yearly amount. Sounds like a win win It's not high rollers we need to be worrying about its BR and 40% payers that are struggling. I doubt labour would raise them significantly but any raise will further impact these lower and middle earners. " I can see a scenario with more tax bands and possibly raised thresholds. There is no way Labour can afford to hit low income or middle income if they want to stay in power. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" With respect, no it isn't. The law specifically bans the defacement or destruction of religious symbols in public was passed because people were burning Qurans in front of embassies as acts of extremist protest, and as big a fan as I am of free speech, it's literally a threat to national security. " Why is burning a religious book considered an act of extremism? In India, a group of people from lower caste burn a Hindu religious book every year as a ceremony because that book has the basis of caste system. People who supported freedom of expression very well knew that it could be used by bad people too. But having the right is much more important. People who burn the book aren't extremists. The ones who respond to it by violence and death threats are. " Your other points are true, but at a macro-social level. Cultures have different values, it's true, but individual people's values tend to differ far, far less. My point is integration relies on interaction and co-operation between different communities on a personal level. Where that happens, you have more harmony as people get to know one another as fellow human beings. Where it doesn't, people only see other cultures as a faceless mass and you get conflict. " That interaction isn't that easy or straightforward than you think. It's a default behaviour for people from different cultures to go live with people who have same values to them. Most people would take the lazy way out. It applies for British people visiting other countries too. " As an example, if you look at the polling data in the UK for which areas are most concerned about immigration, it's usually rural, predominantly white-British areas. People in urban areas who live among people from all kinds of different cultures and ethnic groups tend to see immigration as much less of a problem. " That's because most rural areas tend to be much more communal. It's same in India too. You see numerous people speaking lots of languages in big cities. But then no one even knows the name of their neighbours. But small towns and villages aren't like that. They have a way of life that depends on the neighbours also to follow certain behaviours. But the city people's way of life just like a Ostrich burying head under the sand. The problems show up at political level, when people with different views start voting for different things. " The problem over here is there are very few mechanisms to promote cultural exchange, and basically no appetite to create any." It is the duty of an immigrant to go out of their way to integrate with the local culture. After all, it's they who made the decision to move to the country. Unfortunately, most don't do it. One girl in my extended family here once told her Pakistani friend was told by her father to befriend only the other Asian girls and not to talk to white/black girls because they are of "bad character". Anecdotally speaking, I would go as far as saying racism among Asians is much higher compared to racism among white people in UK. I know multiple Asian landlords who wouldn't rent their home to black people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why is burning a religious book considered an act of extremism? In India, a group of people from lower caste burn a Hindu religious book every year as a ceremony because that book has the basis of caste system. People who supported freedom of expression very well knew that it could be used by bad people too. But having the right is much more important. People who burn the book aren't extremists. The ones who respond to it by violence and death threats are." In this case, it's an inflammatory act intended to provoke an entire community. The people burning the Quran in front of embassies are extremists. Some of them are far right and some of them are middle-eastern refugees, they have different agendas but they're all doing it explicitly to start a fight. "That interaction isn't that easy or straightforward than you think. It's a default behaviour for people from different cultures to go live with people who have same values to them. Most people would take the lazy way out. It applies for British people visiting other countries too." Did I say it was easy or straightforward? Of course it isn;t. But it's possible, with hard work and the right intentions. The tricky bit is convincing people to try at all, and if you start from a point of "integration leads to conflict" then few people will ever be up for it. "That's because most rural areas tend to be much more communal. It's same in India too. You see numerous people speaking lots of languages in big cities. But then no one even knows the name of their neighbours. But small towns and villages aren't like that. They have a way of life that depends on the neighbours also to follow certain behaviours. But the city people's way of life just like a Ostrich burying head under the sand. The problems show up at political level, when people with different views start voting for different things." Yes, rural areas tend to be more communal, or to put it another way, insular. They have very strong homogenous social networks but they are resistant to outsiders. The problem of social isolation in cities isn't the opposite of that, it's a different problem caused by different things. Put it this way, in a city people may not know the names of their neighbours but they're less likely to be bothered about what colour their skin is. "It is the duty of an immigrant to go out of their way to integrate with the local culture. After all, it's they who made the decision to move to the country. Unfortunately, most don't do it. One girl in my extended family here once told her Pakistani friend was told by her father to befriend only the other Asian girls and not to talk to white/black girls because they are of "bad character". Anecdotally speaking, I would go as far as saying racism among Asians is much higher compared to racism among white people in UK. I know multiple Asian landlords who wouldn't rent their home to black people. " I agree that immigrants have a duty to integrate, but the host community has a duty to help them do so. It may be the case that immigrant communities can become hostile to the host culture, and other immigrant communities, but that tends to be because historically immigrant communities have been ghettoised, stigmatised, marginalised and rejected, so they are in a permanent state of defence. We are at a point in our history where huge swaths of people the world over still believe that communities should remain homogenous and separate. The populations of host nations are typically resistant to immigrant communities because they don't understand the benefit these can bring and often falsely believe they constitute a threat to the established way of life. And governments typically do very little to address it because it doesn't play well with precisely the electorate whose minds it would change. But, as above, it's not an intractable problem. Stamping out xenophobia is a slow and incremental process, but if you compare where we are today to where we were two hundred years ago, there has been not inconsiderable progress. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I doubt it. Fair enough. I guess it's clear what to conclude from that. Bye now. Is it?" Pretty much, yeah. I've not been on here long, to be fair, but I've seen enough of your posts to get the idea. "When people tell you who they are, believe them" and all that. Laters. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I doubt it. Fair enough. I guess it's clear what to conclude from that. Bye now. Is it? Pretty much, yeah. I've not been on here long, to be fair, but I've seen enough of your posts to get the idea. "When people tell you who they are, believe them" and all that. Laters." I didn't tell you who I am. You've made your mind up all on your own. The people who have been here long enough will know that I stand by myself and don't always agree with one side or the other. What I have noticed about you is that whilst you're happy to call out people who don't respond to certain parts of your statements, you're the first to ignore parts you don't like. A prime example being xenophobia and racism above re. Asian communities. That actually confirms what I thought anyway. Love you x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I didn't tell you who I am." Oh, but you did. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" In this case, it's an inflammatory act intended to provoke an entire community. The people burning the Quran in front of embassies are extremists. Some of them are far right and some of them are middle-eastern refugees, they have different agendas but they're all doing it explicitly to start a fight. " End of the day, it's just a religious book. We definitely do not want to go back to the days of blasphemy laws. Religions are just ideologies. One should be able to mock it. Should we start arresting people for burning the communist _anifesto in front of the offices of communist groups? That could be considered inflammatory too. " Did I say it was easy or straightforward? Of course it isn;t. But it's possible, with hard work and the right intentions. The tricky bit is convincing people to try at all, and if you start from a point of "integration leads to conflict" then few people will ever be up for it. " Integration means one person giving up his own values for the sake of being integrated in the society. Who can act as the enforcer here? " Yes, rural areas tend to be more communal, or to put it another way, insular. They have very strong homogenous social networks but they are resistant to outsiders. The problem of social isolation in cities isn't the opposite of that, it's a different problem caused by different things. Put it this way, in a city people may not know the names of their neighbours but they're less likely to be bothered about what colour their skin is. " In rural areas, they are resistant to outsiders because communities require social trust which has to be earned which takes awhile. In cities, they are less likely to be bothered by someone's skin colour because they do not have to interact with other people. You can't force a similar lifestyle on everyone just for the sake of it. " I agree that immigrants have a duty to integrate, but the host community has a duty to help them do so. It may be the case that immigrant communities can become hostile to the host culture, and other immigrant communities, but that tends to be because historically immigrant communities have been ghettoised, stigmatised, marginalised and rejected, so they are in a permanent state of defence. We are at a point in our history where huge swaths of people the world over still believe that communities should remain homogenous and separate. The populations of host nations are typically resistant to immigrant communities because they don't understand the benefit these can bring and often falsely believe they constitute a threat to the established way of life. And governments typically do very little to address it because it doesn't play well with precisely the electorate whose minds it would change. " Why is it a duty of the host community? They did not sign up for it. People have limited time in their lives. They don't have to spend their time to fulfil this "duty" which they did not sign up for. Immigrant communities are ghettoised because that's what they want. Denmark also enforced anti-ghetto laws. And it's one of the measures which apparently resulted in a drastic reduction in number of asylum applications to that country. The problem with most people on the left(both economically and socially) is that they think they know what benefits all the people. They see all humans as same and looking for the same thing, which is usually material benefits. Dostoevsky pointed out this problem in the 19th century itself in his "Notes from the underground". Take Japan for instance. They are hugely affected by an ageing population. All economic experts say that they need to get more immigrants or their economy is doomed. But as a society, they have prioritised social harmony over economic benefits, even if it means they work their asses off for hours. There is no right or wrong here. If Japanese people prefer to stay homogeneous, they should be able to. If people in another country actually want more immigration for boosting economy, they should be able to get more immigrants for. But one should not push this diversity is awesome ideology on people who do not want it. Also, illegal immigration isn't even economically beneficial to the society. It's basically charity and charity shouldn't be forced either. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Q. Should the UK allow the building of mosques? Yes, but we need to keep a watch on what is being taught there. For example, France recently banned Imams from some countries from entering their country. We need to do something similar. Q. Should the UK allow for polygamous marriage? Laws should be same for everyone irrespective of religion. What this law says should be an outcome of democratic votes. Sharia courts should be banned though. Q. Should the UK ban face coverings for women working in citizen facing public sector roles? We should ban them in schools. Q. Should the taxpayer pick up the tab for translation requirements in the public sector? No. People who have moved here from another country have an obligation to learn the local language. " Whereas I do not agree with all statements, I get the standpoint. The moral compass and culture will always have different opinions of these questions But surely, if the taxpayer didn't pay for translation requirements in the public sector. Would we not put ourselves at risk? as even people who have a second language cannot always communicate important information precisely. Having a translator will always be beneficial. I am guessing that when you made this statement, it only referred to some illegal immigrant or some type of leech on the public system. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who is Jordan Peterson? an intellectual who is not afraid to speak his mind, who has had his own demons to deal with. If Peterson is what passes for an intellectual these days, we're all in trouble.
That tickled me"Me too, I have read his book and have concluded that he is away with the fairies. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Q. Should the UK allow the building of mosques? Yes, but we need to keep a watch on what is being taught there. For example, France recently banned Imams from some countries from entering their country. We need to do something similar. Q. Should the UK allow for polygamous marriage? Laws should be same for everyone irrespective of religion. What this law says should be an outcome of democratic votes. Sharia courts should be banned though. Q. Should the UK ban face coverings for women working in citizen facing public sector roles? We should ban them in schools. Q. Should the taxpayer pick up the tab for translation requirements in the public sector? No. People who have moved here from another country have an obligation to learn the local language. Whereas I do not agree with all statements, I get the standpoint. The moral compass and culture will always have different opinions of these questions But surely, if the taxpayer didn't pay for translation requirements in the public sector. Would we not put ourselves at risk? as even people who have a second language cannot always communicate important information precisely. Having a translator will always be beneficial. I am guessing that when you made this statement, it only referred to some illegal immigrant or some type of leech on the public system. " As far as I know, legal immigrants need to prove proficiency in English to get Visa, unless there is a special exemption for some cases. My view is that it's unfair to make some people pay money for translation because a few others wouldn't even learn the language of the country they live in. When I checked, the most translation requirements were for Polish, Czech and Slovakian. If they need translation, they should pay for it themselves. What's the risk if the tax payer doesn't pay for translation? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What's the risk if the tax payer doesn't pay for translation?" Maybe I am overthinking, but... In order to stop a problem, you generally have to kill the source. Understanding why and how immigrants come here may require deeper questionings Mistakes and lack of understanding: Any test can be passed, and the knowledge can be easily forgotten if not used often. It is important that any country communicate actions to be taken by a person that they fully understand, like deportation or even imprisonment Even in the most simple scenario, you go to a country and are refused entry. Its the country's responsibility to explain why you are being deported and that you fully understand | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What's the risk if the tax payer doesn't pay for translation? Maybe I am overthinking, but... In order to stop a problem, you generally have to kill the source. Understanding why and how immigrants come here may require deeper questionings Mistakes and lack of understanding: Any test can be passed, and the knowledge can be easily forgotten if not used often. It is important that any country communicate actions to be taken by a person that they fully understand, like deportation or even imprisonment Even in the most simple scenario, you go to a country and are refused entry. Its the country's responsibility to explain why you are being deported and that you fully understand " Ah I see your point. I guess it's hard to take a stance without understanding where all the money is spent. Given that most translation requests are for Eastern European languages, it's probably not a problem with illegal immigration either. Looks more like migrants from pre-brexit times who didn't have to go through all requirements for a work visa. For what purpose they need translations is also an important factor. But I couldn't find any stats for that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who is Jordan Peterson? an intellectual who is not afraid to speak his mind, who has had his own demons to deal with. If Peterson is what passes for an intellectual these days, we're all in trouble.
That tickled me
Me too, I have read his book and have concluded that he is away with the fairies."Was there anything specific that made you think this? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
