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 |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"2. If views were against the law, then we have law to deal with that. " Ok but those laws were set in a different time with different morality and by the Govt of the day. If the majority of people support a party who wish to change the law to permit their policy, what then? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"2. If views were against the law, then we have law to deal with that. Ok but those laws were set in a different time with different morality and by the Govt of the day. If the majority of people support a party who wish to change the law to permit their policy, what then?" If this party tell people they want to change the law to enable X, the people can decide if they agree with that or not, and in turn cast their vote. Let's face it, laws are changed all the time that we may or may not agree with, without any electorate say. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"1) As long as they have not broken laws that are in place to prevent extremism. 2) The answer to question 1 would deal with small silo type parties. However, if we got the situation you are suggesting that the majority of the country voted for extreme policies, we would be at the point of a civil war." But we have had extremism before and laws have been changed. There was a time when some groups believed owning sl@ves was ok. Then extremists came along with a different view. Ultimately as that view gained popular support the law was changed. So why couldn’t that happen in reverse? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?" 1) Not regardless of policies, no. A party who stands on an extreme policy (which would be a nightmare to agree on what ‘extreme’ means) should not be permitted to put that policy to the public. From the other thread - a theoretical proposed policy about repatriation of foreign born legal citizens should not be acceptable in a manifesto. 2) if 1 was controlled adequately then 2 ceases to be a problem. If however such a policy made it to law, then upstanding citizens would be faced with the choice of of opposition (potentially by violence with associated risks) or to leave the country in question. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country? 1) Not regardless of policies, no. A party who stands on an extreme policy (which would be a nightmare to agree on what ‘extreme’ means) should not be permitted to put that policy to the public. From the other thread - a theoretical proposed policy about repatriation of foreign born legal citizens should not be acceptable in a manifesto. 2) if 1 was controlled adequately then 2 ceases to be a problem. If however such a policy made it to law, then upstanding citizens would be faced with the choice of of opposition (potentially by violence with associated risks) or to leave the country in question. " So if a hypothetical party that secretly held extremist views, tempered those in their manifestoes, got elected by a huge majority, bided their time for a bit and then began introducing increasingly extreme policies to get legislation and law changed. What then? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country? 1) Not regardless of policies, no. A party who stands on an extreme policy (which would be a nightmare to agree on what ‘extreme’ means) should not be permitted to put that policy to the public. From the other thread - a theoretical proposed policy about repatriation of foreign born legal citizens should not be acceptable in a manifesto. 2) if 1 was controlled adequately then 2 ceases to be a problem. If however such a policy made it to law, then upstanding citizens would be faced with the choice of of opposition (potentially by violence with associated risks) or to leave the country in question. So if a hypothetical party that secretly held extremist views, tempered those in their manifestoes, got elected by a huge majority, bided their time for a bit and then began introducing increasingly extreme policies to get legislation and law changed. What then? " That's what we have now. Remember covid? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country? 1) Not regardless of policies, no. A party who stands on an extreme policy (which would be a nightmare to agree on what ‘extreme’ means) should not be permitted to put that policy to the public. From the other thread - a theoretical proposed policy about repatriation of foreign born legal citizens should not be acceptable in a manifesto. 2) if 1 was controlled adequately then 2 ceases to be a problem. If however such a policy made it to law, then upstanding citizens would be faced with the choice of of opposition (potentially by violence with associated risks) or to leave the country in question. So if a hypothetical party that secretly held extremist views, tempered those in their manifestoes, got elected by a huge majority, bided their time for a bit and then began introducing increasingly extreme policies to get legislation and law changed. What then? " Then the public would have to protest, and take power back at the ballot box ASAP. Peaceful resistance to prevent the policies being enacted ant ground level ideally. Failing that, it would come to chaos and violence, or casual acceptance - depending on the electorate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country? 1) Not regardless of policies, no. A party who stands on an extreme policy (which would be a nightmare to agree on what ‘extreme’ means) should not be permitted to put that policy to the public. From the other thread - a theoretical proposed policy about repatriation of foreign born legal citizens should not be acceptable in a manifesto. 2) if 1 was controlled adequately then 2 ceases to be a problem. If however such a policy made it to law, then upstanding citizens would be faced with the choice of of opposition (potentially by violence with associated risks) or to leave the country in question. So if a hypothetical party that secretly held extremist views, tempered those in their manifestoes, got elected by a huge majority, bided their time for a bit and then began introducing increasingly extreme policies to get legislation and law changed. What then? That's what we have now. Remember covid?" Are you saying Johnson’s govt were extremists? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country? 1) Not regardless of policies, no. A party who stands on an extreme policy (which would be a nightmare to agree on what ‘extreme’ means) should not be permitted to put that policy to the public. From the other thread - a theoretical proposed policy about repatriation of foreign born legal citizens should not be acceptable in a manifesto. 2) if 1 was controlled adequately then 2 ceases to be a problem. If however such a policy made it to law, then upstanding citizens would be faced with the choice of of opposition (potentially by violence with associated risks) or to leave the country in question. So if a hypothetical party that secretly held extremist views, tempered those in their manifestoes, got elected by a huge majority, bided their time for a bit and then began introducing increasingly extreme policies to get legislation and law changed. What then? That's what we have now. Remember covid? Are you saying Johnson’s govt were extremists?" I'm saying some laws introduced were extreme. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wonder how many in the face of their neighbour’s oppression, would stand up and fight. Or keep their mouth shut and go about their business. I’m sure we would all like to think we’d do the right thing - but I suspect none of us have had to make that choice." Indeed. I think all of us could admit to on occasion being a keyboard warrior but actually taking action in real life? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country? 1) Not regardless of policies, no. A party who stands on an extreme policy (which would be a nightmare to agree on what ‘extreme’ means) should not be permitted to put that policy to the public. From the other thread - a theoretical proposed policy about repatriation of foreign born legal citizens should not be acceptable in a manifesto. 2) if 1 was controlled adequately then 2 ceases to be a problem. If however such a policy made it to law, then upstanding citizens would be faced with the choice of of opposition (potentially by violence with associated risks) or to leave the country in question. So if a hypothetical party that secretly held extremist views, tempered those in their manifestoes, got elected by a huge majority, bided their time for a bit and then began introducing increasingly extreme policies to get legislation and law changed. What then? That's what we have now. Remember covid? Are you saying Johnson’s govt were extremists? I'm saying some laws introduced were extreme. " Indeed and done so under the guise (real or otherwise) of a national emergency. That could happen again with more lasting effects. It has in history too (classic example being the Nazis soon after getting elected to Govt). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe I am reading too much philosophy recently. But I think the answer to this question lies on whether you believe on moral absolutism/moral relativism/perspectivism, and if you believe in moral relativism, how far would you go to fight for your own values against others. Sorry for getting too deep "That sounds really interesting. Can/will you expand further? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe I am reading too much philosophy recently. But I think the answer to this question lies on whether you believe on moral absolutism/moral relativism/perspectivism, and if you believe in moral relativism, how far would you go to fight for your own values against others. Sorry for getting too deep "If someone’s values include the oppression of someone for their religious choice or their nation of birth, then their values are worth fighting against. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wonder how many in the face of their neighbour’s oppression, would stand up and fight. Or keep their mouth shut and go about their business. I’m sure we would all like to think we’d do the right thing - but I suspect none of us have had to make that choice." People did with regard to lockdowns and vaccines - they were labelled nutjobs, granny killers and enemies of the State | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wonder how many in the face of their neighbour’s oppression, would stand up and fight. Or keep their mouth shut and go about their business. I’m sure we would all like to think we’d do the right thing - but I suspect none of us have had to make that choice. People did with regard to lockdowns and vaccines - they were labelled nutjobs, granny killers and enemies of the State" Oppression by a vindictive state is not the same as wearing a mask in Tesco, but it’s all relative, I suppose | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wonder how many in the face of their neighbour’s oppression, would stand up and fight. Or keep their mouth shut and go about their business. I’m sure we would all like to think we’d do the right thing - but I suspect none of us have had to make that choice." Ukraine, a lot of talk but very few stood up to be counted | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wonder how many in the face of their neighbour’s oppression, would stand up and fight. Or keep their mouth shut and go about their business. I’m sure we would all like to think we’d do the right thing - but I suspect none of us have had to make that choice. People did with regard to lockdowns and vaccines - they were labelled nutjobs, granny killers and enemies of the State Oppression by a vindictive state is not the same as wearing a mask in Tesco, but it’s all relative, I suppose "Because that’s what they were protesting about  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wonder how many in the face of their neighbour’s oppression, would stand up and fight. Or keep their mouth shut and go about their business. I’m sure we would all like to think we’d do the right thing - but I suspect none of us have had to make that choice." id say they would keep there mouths shut, there were plenty in germany in the 30s and 40s who were disgusted with what was going on but knew if they spoke up it was off to prison or worse unless im mistaken and the whole of germany were all nazis | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wonder how many in the face of their neighbour’s oppression, would stand up and fight. Or keep their mouth shut and go about their business. I’m sure we would all like to think we’d do the right thing - but I suspect none of us have had to make that choice. People did with regard to lockdowns and vaccines - they were labelled nutjobs, granny killers and enemies of the State Oppression by a vindictive state is not the same as wearing a mask in Tesco, but it’s all relative, I suppose
Because that’s what they were protesting about "Covid was an unusual event which isn’t really comparable to a theoretical fascist regime in charge of the nation. Many of the people protesting lockdown measures and so on were right to be angry at the govt ignoring their own advice (who wouldn’t be?) but wrong to protest at the measures themselves - which saved lives. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wonder how many in the face of their neighbour’s oppression, would stand up and fight. Or keep their mouth shut and go about their business. I’m sure we would all like to think we’d do the right thing - but I suspect none of us have had to make that choice.id say they would keep there mouths shut, there were plenty in germany in the 30s and 40s who were disgusted with what was going on but knew if they spoke up it was off to prison or worse unless im mistaken and the whole of germany were all nazis" It’s a very human reaction to protect oneself and say nothing. An understandable one. I suspect I’d leave the country if I couldn’t fight back in any effective way. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wonder how many in the face of their neighbour’s oppression, would stand up and fight. Or keep their mouth shut and go about their business. I’m sure we would all like to think we’d do the right thing - but I suspect none of us have had to make that choice. People did with regard to lockdowns and vaccines - they were labelled nutjobs, granny killers and enemies of the State Oppression by a vindictive state is not the same as wearing a mask in Tesco, but it’s all relative, I suppose
Because that’s what they were protesting about
Covid was an unusual event which isn’t really comparable to a theoretical fascist regime in charge of the nation.
Many of the people protesting lockdown measures and so on were right to be angry at the govt ignoring their own advice (who wouldn’t be?) but wrong to protest at the measures themselves - which saved lives."You're right, it isn't comparable. One is a real life event and one a theoretical event. I won't even get into the 'saving lives' emotional argument. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Getting a sneaking feeling the thread is starting a tangential spiral "m Nah, no need. Covid restrictions put in place after taking medical advice are incomparable with an actual fascist (or yes, communist) government. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Getting a sneaking feeling the thread is starting a tangential spiral "Of course. I brought of covid as an example of Govt imposing extreme laws without the electorates say. Now it's gonna be about covid and how it wasn't extreme to lock people down, impose sanction for non compliance of immunisations etc. It started so well  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe I am reading too much philosophy recently. But I think the answer to this question lies on whether you believe on moral absolutism/moral relativism/perspectivism, and if you believe in moral relativism, how far would you go to fight for your own values against others. Sorry for getting too deep
If someone’s values include the oppression of someone for their religious choice or their nation of birth, then their values are worth fighting against. "If only life and mortality are as simple as that. You are once again trying to give special privilege to religion. If one's religion teaches them that being gay is a punishable offence and many of the followers believe it, a gay person may well be justified to oppose that religion at all cost. Religions themselves have been the cause of oppression for thousands of years. Sometimes you have to fight religions head on. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe I am reading too much philosophy recently. But I think the answer to this question lies on whether you believe on moral absolutism/moral relativism/perspectivism, and if you believe in moral relativism, how far would you go to fight for your own values against others. Sorry for getting too deep
If someone’s values include the oppression of someone for their religious choice or their nation of birth, then their values are worth fighting against.
If only life and mortality are as simple as that. You are once again trying to give special privilege to religion. If one's religion teaches them that being gay is a punishable offence and many of the followers believe it, a gay person may well be justified to oppose that religion at all cost. Religions themselves have been the cause of oppression for thousands of years. Sometimes you have to fight religions head on."Actually the specific example was based upon repatriation of foreign born legal citizens - not about religion. You’re right about oppressive religions though, who impact upon rights like homosexuality etc - but once again, just because a religion has a sect which is anti-gay or pro-terror, it doesn’t mean we should tar all followers of that religion with the same brush. Extremists are the problem, not the religion, nor the party, or indeed the country. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You'll never ban them. They just go underground" It’s better to have genuine extremists underground than have them in power, though. We’ll never be rid of racism, sadly - but surely it’s better kept out of policy creation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"Ban the tories for a start!" They’re doing a fine job of destroying themselves at present | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wonder how many in the face of their neighbour’s oppression, would stand up and fight. Or keep their mouth shut and go about their business. I’m sure we would all like to think we’d do the right thing - but I suspect none of us have had to make that choice.id say they would keep there mouths shut, there were plenty in germany in the 30s and 40s who were disgusted with what was going on but knew if they spoke up it was off to prison or worse unless im mistaken and the whole of germany were all nazis It’s a very human reaction to protect oneself and say nothing. An understandable one. I suspect I’d leave the country if I couldn’t fight back in any effective way. " i think u would be leaving, if an actual fascist goverment took power you would be an enemy of the state and be treated like one, and fighting them politiacaly would be impossible,there wouldnt be any other partys left, sometimes i dont think people understand what an actual fascist goverment would meen, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"2. If views were against the law, then we have law to deal with that. Ok but those laws were set in a different time with different morality and by the Govt of the day. If the majority of people support a party who wish to change the law to permit their policy, what then?" Rwandaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe I am reading too much philosophy recently. But I think the answer to this question lies on whether you believe on moral absolutism/moral relativism/perspectivism, and if you believe in moral relativism, how far would you go to fight for your own values against others. Sorry for getting too deep
That sounds really interesting. Can/will you expand further?"There are three questions here: 1) Do you believe right wing extremism is morally right or wrong? Let's say we all believe it's morally wrong. 2) Do you believe in democracy? 3) Do you believe that your moral views about right wing extremism is absolute and universally correct? Moral absolutists claim that there are universal moral principles, irrespective of the which society and which time we are talking about. Moral relativists claim that mortality keeps changing with times and different in different societies. There is moral perspectivism/constructivism which is a bit complex. Democracy itself is more tilted towards moral relativism as you are asking people to make moral choices. If you are supporter of democracy but also a moral absolutist, you need to clarify the paradox of what happens when people democratically vote for right wing extremism. Do you give up on democracy and want your views to be forced by banning the party? Or do you give up on your other moral views in favour of democracy, which probably means you are more of a moral relativist. If you are a moral relativist and the population voted in favour of right wing extremism, you can say that while you don't like the outcome, there is nothing inherently wrong about it. You could just move out of the country to a society that matches your ideals. Or you can perform a coup, become a dictator and force your moderate ideals on others, in which case you definitely do not care for democracy. You can justify it by saying that you are a moral relativist and you are a selfish power hungry person who forces his views on the rest of the world. I know I did a terrible job at explaining this. There is a reason why books about these topics are huge. There isn't an easy way to simplify this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe I am reading too much philosophy recently. But I think the answer to this question lies on whether you believe on moral absolutism/moral relativism/perspectivism, and if you believe in moral relativism, how far would you go to fight for your own values against others. Sorry for getting too deep
That sounds really interesting. Can/will you expand further?
There are three questions here:
1) Do you believe right wing extremism is morally right or wrong? Let's say we all believe it's morally wrong.
2) Do you believe in democracy?
3) Do you believe that your moral views about right wing extremism is absolute and universally correct?
Moral absolutists claim that there are universal moral principles, irrespective of the which society and which time we are talking about. Moral relativists claim that mortality keeps changing with times and different in different societies. There is moral perspectivism/constructivism which is a bit complex.
Democracy itself is more tilted towards moral relativism as you are asking people to make moral choices.
If you are supporter of democracy but also a moral absolutist, you need to clarify the paradox of what happens when people democratically vote for right wing extremism. Do you give up on democracy and want your views to be forced by banning the party? Or do you give up on your other moral views in favour of democracy, which probably means you are more of a moral relativist.
If you are a moral relativist and the population voted in favour of right wing extremism, you can say that while you don't like the outcome, there is nothing inherently wrong about it. You could just move out of the country to a society that matches your ideals.
Or you can perform a coup, become a dictator and force your moderate ideals on others, in which case you definitely do not care for democracy. You can justify it by saying that you are a moral relativist and you are a selfish power hungry person who forces his views on the rest of the world.
I know I did a terrible job at explaining this. There is a reason why books about these topics are huge. There isn't an easy way to simplify this."You did a great job! Interesting stuff indeed. Would totally see myself as a Moral relativist. I studied history at degree level so the change in perspective over time and what was considered acceptable in society at a given moment is fascinating. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe I am reading too much philosophy recently. But I think the answer to this question lies on whether you believe on moral absolutism/moral relativism/perspectivism, and if you believe in moral relativism, how far would you go to fight for your own values against others. Sorry for getting too deep
That sounds really interesting. Can/will you expand further?
There are three questions here:
1) Do you believe right wing extremism is morally right or wrong? Let's say we all believe it's morally wrong.
2) Do you believe in democracy?
3) Do you believe that your moral views about right wing extremism is absolute and universally correct?
Moral absolutists claim that there are universal moral principles, irrespective of the which society and which time we are talking about. Moral relativists claim that mortality keeps changing with times and different in different societies. There is moral perspectivism/constructivism which is a bit complex.
Democracy itself is more tilted towards moral relativism as you are asking people to make moral choices.
If you are supporter of democracy but also a moral absolutist, you need to clarify the paradox of what happens when people democratically vote for right wing extremism. Do you give up on democracy and want your views to be forced by banning the party? Or do you give up on your other moral views in favour of democracy, which probably means you are more of a moral relativist.
If you are a moral relativist and the population voted in favour of right wing extremism, you can say that while you don't like the outcome, there is nothing inherently wrong about it. You could just move out of the country to a society that matches your ideals.
Or you can perform a coup, become a dictator and force your moderate ideals on others, in which case you definitely do not care for democracy. You can justify it by saying that you are a moral relativist and you are a selfish power hungry person who forces his views on the rest of the world.
I know I did a terrible job at explaining this. There is a reason why books about these topics are huge. There isn't an easy way to simplify this.
You did a great job! Interesting stuff indeed. Would totally see myself as a Moral relativist. I studied history at degree level so the change in perspective over time and what was considered acceptable in society at a given moment is fascinating. "Where do you see the future of mankind? More accepting or less accepting of people and cultures? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe I am reading too much philosophy recently. But I think the answer to this question lies on whether you believe on moral absolutism/moral relativism/perspectivism, and if you believe in moral relativism, how far would you go to fight for your own values against others. Sorry for getting too deep
That sounds really interesting. Can/will you expand further?
There are three questions here:
1) Do you believe right wing extremism is morally right or wrong? Let's say we all believe it's morally wrong.
2) Do you believe in democracy?
3) Do you believe that your moral views about right wing extremism is absolute and universally correct?
Moral absolutists claim that there are universal moral principles, irrespective of the which society and which time we are talking about. Moral relativists claim that mortality keeps changing with times and different in different societies. There is moral perspectivism/constructivism which is a bit complex.
Democracy itself is more tilted towards moral relativism as you are asking people to make moral choices.
If you are supporter of democracy but also a moral absolutist, you need to clarify the paradox of what happens when people democratically vote for right wing extremism. Do you give up on democracy and want your views to be forced by banning the party? Or do you give up on your other moral views in favour of democracy, which probably means you are more of a moral relativist.
If you are a moral relativist and the population voted in favour of right wing extremism, you can say that while you don't like the outcome, there is nothing inherently wrong about it. You could just move out of the country to a society that matches your ideals.
Or you can perform a coup, become a dictator and force your moderate ideals on others, in which case you definitely do not care for democracy. You can justify it by saying that you are a moral relativist and you are a selfish power hungry person who forces his views on the rest of the world.
I know I did a terrible job at explaining this. There is a reason why books about these topics are huge. There isn't an easy way to simplify this.
You did a great job! Interesting stuff indeed. Would totally see myself as a Moral relativist. I studied history at degree level so the change in perspective over time and what was considered acceptable in society at a given moment is fascinating.
Where do you see the future of mankind? More accepting or less accepting of people and cultures?"give it another 20 years or so and we will be fighting each other over clean water peoples cultures wont even come into it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe I am reading too much philosophy recently. But I think the answer to this question lies on whether you believe on moral absolutism/moral relativism/perspectivism, and if you believe in moral relativism, how far would you go to fight for your own values against others. Sorry for getting too deep
That sounds really interesting. Can/will you expand further?
There are three questions here:
1) Do you believe right wing extremism is morally right or wrong? Let's say we all believe it's morally wrong.
2) Do you believe in democracy?
3) Do you believe that your moral views about right wing extremism is absolute and universally correct?
Moral absolutists claim that there are universal moral principles, irrespective of the which society and which time we are talking about. Moral relativists claim that mortality keeps changing with times and different in different societies. There is moral perspectivism/constructivism which is a bit complex.
Democracy itself is more tilted towards moral relativism as you are asking people to make moral choices.
If you are supporter of democracy but also a moral absolutist, you need to clarify the paradox of what happens when people democratically vote for right wing extremism. Do you give up on democracy and want your views to be forced by banning the party? Or do you give up on your other moral views in favour of democracy, which probably means you are more of a moral relativist.
If you are a moral relativist and the population voted in favour of right wing extremism, you can say that while you don't like the outcome, there is nothing inherently wrong about it. You could just move out of the country to a society that matches your ideals.
Or you can perform a coup, become a dictator and force your moderate ideals on others, in which case you definitely do not care for democracy. You can justify it by saying that you are a moral relativist and you are a selfish power hungry person who forces his views on the rest of the world.
I know I did a terrible job at explaining this. There is a reason why books about these topics are huge. There isn't an easy way to simplify this."That is a good explanation - the problem comes when you do have a growing sector of society who are not only accepting, but embracing of extremism (from either end of the spectrum). This reeks of a cultural decline, with a desire for change manifesting itself in a willingness to ‘other’ fellow citizens (and perhaps even family/friends). I would not accept an extremist government in the name of democracy (we’re not talking about a further-right-than-usual Tory party here, but actual extremism). I would flee the country in the probable event they could not be fought against. An extremist government would have little or no interest in democracy anyway (as pointed out above by another poster) and would most likely have to rely on the gun to attain actual power, so it wouldn’t be undemocratic to rally against them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"1. Yes, provided they stay within the confines of law. 2. If views were against the law, then we have law to deal with that. " Like trump ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe I am reading too much philosophy recently. But I think the answer to this question lies on whether you believe on moral absolutism/moral relativism/perspectivism, and if you believe in moral relativism, how far would you go to fight for your own values against others. Sorry for getting too deep
That sounds really interesting. Can/will you expand further?
There are three questions here:
1) Do you believe right wing extremism is morally right or wrong? Let's say we all believe it's morally wrong.
2) Do you believe in democracy?
3) Do you believe that your moral views about right wing extremism is absolute and universally correct?
Moral absolutists claim that there are universal moral principles, irrespective of the which society and which time we are talking about. Moral relativists claim that mortality keeps changing with times and different in different societies. There is moral perspectivism/constructivism which is a bit complex.
Democracy itself is more tilted towards moral relativism as you are asking people to make moral choices.
If you are supporter of democracy but also a moral absolutist, you need to clarify the paradox of what happens when people democratically vote for right wing extremism. Do you give up on democracy and want your views to be forced by banning the party? Or do you give up on your other moral views in favour of democracy, which probably means you are more of a moral relativist.
If you are a moral relativist and the population voted in favour of right wing extremism, you can say that while you don't like the outcome, there is nothing inherently wrong about it. You could just move out of the country to a society that matches your ideals.
Or you can perform a coup, become a dictator and force your moderate ideals on others, in which case you definitely do not care for democracy. You can justify it by saying that you are a moral relativist and you are a selfish power hungry person who forces his views on the rest of the world.
I know I did a terrible job at explaining this. There is a reason why books about these topics are huge. There isn't an easy way to simplify this.
You did a great job! Interesting stuff indeed. Would totally see myself as a Moral relativist. I studied history at degree level so the change in perspective over time and what was considered acceptable in society at a given moment is fascinating.
Where do you see the future of mankind? More accepting or less accepting of people and cultures?"All depends on how comfortable with our lot we are. In times of economic hardship people look for scapegoats which can be exploited by extremists. When times are good, most people tend to be more relaxed, liberal and accepting of difference. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe I am reading too much philosophy recently. But I think the answer to this question lies on whether you believe on moral absolutism/moral relativism/perspectivism, and if you believe in moral relativism, how far would you go to fight for your own values against others. Sorry for getting too deep
That sounds really interesting. Can/will you expand further?
There are three questions here:
1) Do you believe right wing extremism is morally right or wrong? Let's say we all believe it's morally wrong.
2) Do you believe in democracy?
3) Do you believe that your moral views about right wing extremism is absolute and universally correct?
Moral absolutists claim that there are universal moral principles, irrespective of the which society and which time we are talking about. Moral relativists claim that mortality keeps changing with times and different in different societies. There is moral perspectivism/constructivism which is a bit complex.
Democracy itself is more tilted towards moral relativism as you are asking people to make moral choices.
If you are supporter of democracy but also a moral absolutist, you need to clarify the paradox of what happens when people democratically vote for right wing extremism. Do you give up on democracy and want your views to be forced by banning the party? Or do you give up on your other moral views in favour of democracy, which probably means you are more of a moral relativist.
If you are a moral relativist and the population voted in favour of right wing extremism, you can say that while you don't like the outcome, there is nothing inherently wrong about it. You could just move out of the country to a society that matches your ideals.
Or you can perform a coup, become a dictator and force your moderate ideals on others, in which case you definitely do not care for democracy. You can justify it by saying that you are a moral relativist and you are a selfish power hungry person who forces his views on the rest of the world.
I know I did a terrible job at explaining this. There is a reason why books about these topics are huge. There isn't an easy way to simplify this.
You did a great job! Interesting stuff indeed. Would totally see myself as a Moral relativist. I studied history at degree level so the change in perspective over time and what was considered acceptable in society at a given moment is fascinating. "Yeah people who have a better understanding of history tend to be closer to moral relativists as they have seen enough crazy shit being done in the name of "moral good" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would take issue at this phrase: “you can say that while you don't like the outcome, there is nothing inherently wrong about it” If we’re talking about right or left wing extremism, then there’s *definitely* something inherently wrong with it. " "Left extremism" seems to be mostly being "woke", wanting to tackle climate change, questioning the mass killing of civilians etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would take issue at this phrase: “you can say that while you don't like the outcome, there is nothing inherently wrong about it” If we’re talking about right or left wing extremism, then there’s *definitely* something inherently wrong with it. "Left extremism" seems to be mostly being "woke", wanting to tackle climate change, questioning the mass killing of civilians etc. " No, that’s just being a decent person  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe I am reading too much philosophy recently. But I think the answer to this question lies on whether you believe on moral absolutism/moral relativism/perspectivism, and if you believe in moral relativism, how far would you go to fight for your own values against others. Sorry for getting too deep
That sounds really interesting. Can/will you expand further?
There are three questions here:
1) Do you believe right wing extremism is morally right or wrong? Let's say we all believe it's morally wrong.
2) Do you believe in democracy?
3) Do you believe that your moral views about right wing extremism is absolute and universally correct?
Moral absolutists claim that there are universal moral principles, irrespective of the which society and which time we are talking about. Moral relativists claim that mortality keeps changing with times and different in different societies. There is moral perspectivism/constructivism which is a bit complex.
Democracy itself is more tilted towards moral relativism as you are asking people to make moral choices.
If you are supporter of democracy but also a moral absolutist, you need to clarify the paradox of what happens when people democratically vote for right wing extremism. Do you give up on democracy and want your views to be forced by banning the party? Or do you give up on your other moral views in favour of democracy, which probably means you are more of a moral relativist.
If you are a moral relativist and the population voted in favour of right wing extremism, you can say that while you don't like the outcome, there is nothing inherently wrong about it. You could just move out of the country to a society that matches your ideals.
Or you can perform a coup, become a dictator and force your moderate ideals on others, in which case you definitely do not care for democracy. You can justify it by saying that you are a moral relativist and you are a selfish power hungry person who forces his views on the rest of the world.
I know I did a terrible job at explaining this. There is a reason why books about these topics are huge. There isn't an easy way to simplify this.
That is a good explanation - the problem comes when you do have a growing sector of society who are not only accepting, but embracing of extremism (from either end of the spectrum). This reeks of a cultural decline, with a desire for change manifesting itself in a willingness to ‘other’ fellow citizens (and perhaps even family/friends).
I would not accept an extremist government in the name of democracy (we’re not talking about a further-right-than-usual Tory party here, but actual extremism). I would flee the country in the probable event they could not be fought against.
An extremist government would have little or no interest in democracy anyway (as pointed out above by another poster) and would most likely have to rely on the gun to attain actual power, so it wouldn’t be undemocratic to rally against them.
"It shows you have strong mora feelings against extremism on both ends. Do you think it's ok for other countries to not follow your moral values? For example, during the football world cup, lots of people from the West were complaining about Qatar's culture of badly repeating women and the LGBT comnunity. Their response was "It's our culture. Why do you care? We don't want to interfere with Western culture. You don't interfere with others" Would you accept their argument and shut up or try to force your moral values on them? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would take issue at this phrase: “you can say that while you don't like the outcome, there is nothing inherently wrong about it” If we’re talking about right or left wing extremism, then there’s *definitely* something inherently wrong with it. "Left extremism" seems to be mostly being "woke", wanting to tackle climate change, questioning the mass killing of civilians etc. " This right here is the issue with left wing extremism, people don't think it exists. It could be argued that Corbyn and momentum were extreme. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would take issue at this phrase: “you can say that while you don't like the outcome, there is nothing inherently wrong about it” If we’re talking about right or left wing extremism, then there’s *definitely* something inherently wrong with it. "Left extremism" seems to be mostly being "woke", wanting to tackle climate change, questioning the mass killing of civilians etc. " You really think that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe I am reading too much philosophy recently. But I think the answer to this question lies on whether you believe on moral absolutism/moral relativism/perspectivism, and if you believe in moral relativism, how far would you go to fight for your own values against others. Sorry for getting too deep
That sounds really interesting. Can/will you expand further?
There are three questions here:
1) Do you believe right wing extremism is morally right or wrong? Let's say we all believe it's morally wrong.
2) Do you believe in democracy?
3) Do you believe that your moral views about right wing extremism is absolute and universally correct?
Moral absolutists claim that there are universal moral principles, irrespective of the which society and which time we are talking about. Moral relativists claim that mortality keeps changing with times and different in different societies. There is moral perspectivism/constructivism which is a bit complex.
Democracy itself is more tilted towards moral relativism as you are asking people to make moral choices.
If you are supporter of democracy but also a moral absolutist, you need to clarify the paradox of what happens when people democratically vote for right wing extremism. Do you give up on democracy and want your views to be forced by banning the party? Or do you give up on your other moral views in favour of democracy, which probably means you are more of a moral relativist.
If you are a moral relativist and the population voted in favour of right wing extremism, you can say that while you don't like the outcome, there is nothing inherently wrong about it. You could just move out of the country to a society that matches your ideals.
Or you can perform a coup, become a dictator and force your moderate ideals on others, in which case you definitely do not care for democracy. You can justify it by saying that you are a moral relativist and you are a selfish power hungry person who forces his views on the rest of the world.
I know I did a terrible job at explaining this. There is a reason why books about these topics are huge. There isn't an easy way to simplify this.
That is a good explanation - the problem comes when you do have a growing sector of society who are not only accepting, but embracing of extremism (from either end of the spectrum). This reeks of a cultural decline, with a desire for change manifesting itself in a willingness to ‘other’ fellow citizens (and perhaps even family/friends).
I would not accept an extremist government in the name of democracy (we’re not talking about a further-right-than-usual Tory party here, but actual extremism). I would flee the country in the probable event they could not be fought against.
An extremist government would have little or no interest in democracy anyway (as pointed out above by another poster) and would most likely have to rely on the gun to attain actual power, so it wouldn’t be undemocratic to rally against them.
It shows you have strong mora feelings against extremism on both ends. Do you think it's ok for other countries to not follow your moral values? For example, during the football world cup, lots of people from the West were complaining about Qatar's culture of badly repeating women and the LGBT comnunity. Their response was "It's our culture. Why do you care? We don't want to interfere with Western culture. You don't interfere with others"
Would you accept their argument and shut up or try to force your moral values on them?"We’re not discussing interfering with others, we’re discussing an elected extremist govt in our own nation - two completely different issues. I would love to see all nations living with similar values and respect for individuals, regardless of age, sex, religion etc - but I’m not naive enough to pretend it’s going to happen anytime soon. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would take issue at this phrase: “you can say that while you don't like the outcome, there is nothing inherently wrong about it” If we’re talking about right or left wing extremism, then there’s *definitely* something inherently wrong with it. "Left extremism" seems to be mostly being "woke", wanting to tackle climate change, questioning the mass killing of civilians etc. This right here is the issue with left wing extremism, people don't think it exists. It could be argued that Corbyn and momentum were extreme. " It could be, but only by those who have never looked into run of the mill Scandinavian style soc-dem politics. In the USA, Biden is considered a commie by some (mainly illiterate idiots, but all the same) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Where do you see the future of mankind? More accepting or less accepting of people and cultures?" That's a nice question. On one hand, when people follow different ideologies, there will be some conflicts, some easy to resolve and others not so much. But if everyone follows the same ideology, the world would be fucking boring without any diversity of thoughts. My favourite prediction for far future if we were to survive is that traditional nation states won't exist. Instead we will have states based on different set of ideologies, with people being able to move to different states based on the ideology they like, provided they follow the rules of that state. Like there could be one right libertarian state, one Christian state, one socialist state, one state for those hedonistic pervs. Of course, some of these states could go extinct if they are not fit for survival. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would take issue at this phrase: “you can say that while you don't like the outcome, there is nothing inherently wrong about it” If we’re talking about right or left wing extremism, then there’s *definitely* something inherently wrong with it. "Left extremism" seems to be mostly being "woke", wanting to tackle climate change, questioning the mass killing of civilians etc. This right here is the issue with left wing extremism, people don't think it exists. It could be argued that Corbyn and momentum were extreme. It could be, but only by those who have never looked into run of the mill Scandinavian style soc-dem politics. In the USA, Biden is considered a commie by some (mainly illiterate idiots, but all the same) " Or people who think terrorists should serve full sentences for instance. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe I am reading too much philosophy recently. But I think the answer to this question lies on whether you believe on moral absolutism/moral relativism/perspectivism, and if you believe in moral relativism, how far would you go to fight for your own values against others. Sorry for getting too deep
That sounds really interesting. Can/will you expand further?
There are three questions here:
1) Do you believe right wing extremism is morally right or wrong? Let's say we all believe it's morally wrong.
2) Do you believe in democracy?
3) Do you believe that your moral views about right wing extremism is absolute and universally correct?
Moral absolutists claim that there are universal moral principles, irrespective of the which society and which time we are talking about. Moral relativists claim that mortality keeps changing with times and different in different societies. There is moral perspectivism/constructivism which is a bit complex.
Democracy itself is more tilted towards moral relativism as you are asking people to make moral choices.
If you are supporter of democracy but also a moral absolutist, you need to clarify the paradox of what happens when people democratically vote for right wing extremism. Do you give up on democracy and want your views to be forced by banning the party? Or do you give up on your other moral views in favour of democracy, which probably means you are more of a moral relativist.
If you are a moral relativist and the population voted in favour of right wing extremism, you can say that while you don't like the outcome, there is nothing inherently wrong about it. You could just move out of the country to a society that matches your ideals.
Or you can perform a coup, become a dictator and force your moderate ideals on others, in which case you definitely do not care for democracy. You can justify it by saying that you are a moral relativist and you are a selfish power hungry person who forces his views on the rest of the world.
I know I did a terrible job at explaining this. There is a reason why books about these topics are huge. There isn't an easy way to simplify this.
That is a good explanation - the problem comes when you do have a growing sector of society who are not only accepting, but embracing of extremism (from either end of the spectrum). This reeks of a cultural decline, with a desire for change manifesting itself in a willingness to ‘other’ fellow citizens (and perhaps even family/friends).
I would not accept an extremist government in the name of democracy (we’re not talking about a further-right-than-usual Tory party here, but actual extremism). I would flee the country in the probable event they could not be fought against.
An extremist government would have little or no interest in democracy anyway (as pointed out above by another poster) and would most likely have to rely on the gun to attain actual power, so it wouldn’t be undemocratic to rally against them.
It shows you have strong mora feelings against extremism on both ends. Do you think it's ok for other countries to not follow your moral values? For example, during the football world cup, lots of people from the West were complaining about Qatar's culture of badly repeating women and the LGBT comnunity. Their response was "It's our culture. Why do you care? We don't want to interfere with Western culture. You don't interfere with others"
Would you accept their argument and shut up or try to force your moral values on them?
We’re not discussing interfering with others, we’re discussing an elected extremist govt in our own nation - two completely different issues.
I would love to see all nations living with similar values and respect for individuals, regardless of age, sex, religion etc - but I’m not naive enough to pretend it’s going to happen anytime soon.
"Based on your other post and this one, you believe in absolute moral values but you wouldn't try too much about it by asking other countries to follow those values or going to fight if people democratically make decisions which go against your values(your choice is just to leave the country). This is a fair choice and many people would do the same | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy?" No. There should be limits imposed on political parties' right to register. Only those who fulfill various legal thresholds/standards should be permitted to stand. " Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?" The will of the people is fickle, easily manipulated and prone to extremes under the right conditions. Either voters or parties need to be filtered. It is problematic to filter voters, for all sorts of real and imagined reasons. It is much easier to filter parties. Democracy is emphatically not an end in and of itself and a democratic decision is not "right" simply because a system allows it to triumph (with or without a majority). What makes it so incredibly powerful is that people believe in it and it keeps a sort of equilibrium and peace. If 90 out of 100 people believe that earth is flat, that doesn't make it true. But at least they won't start a war about it if we make that the official policy, while the civil servants quietly ignore that and circumnavigate the globe... It's a messy business, it's unfair and it's sometimes wrong, but it's the least bad system we have. But it certainly isn't it's own goal, to perpetuate itself. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would take issue at this phrase: “you can say that while you don't like the outcome, there is nothing inherently wrong about it” If we’re talking about right or left wing extremism, then there’s *definitely* something inherently wrong with it. "Left extremism" seems to be mostly being "woke", wanting to tackle climate change, questioning the mass killing of civilians etc. You really think that?" You should try expressing one of those options on here. And you'll get hammered for being loony left, socialist, extremist, remoaner, etc etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Where do you see the future of mankind? More accepting or less accepting of people and cultures? That's a nice question. On one hand, when people follow different ideologies, there will be some conflicts, some easy to resolve and others not so much. But if everyone follows the same ideology, the world would be fucking boring without any diversity of thoughts. My favourite prediction for far future if we were to survive is that traditional nation states won't exist. Instead we will have states based on different set of ideologies, with people being able to move to different states based on the ideology they like, provided they follow the rules of that state. Like there could be one right libertarian state, one Christian state, one socialist state, one state for those hedonistic pervs. Of course, some of these states could go extinct if they are not fit for survival." I have listened to a few interesting theories that touch on this, and I feel there will become a point when we become citizens of the world and not of a country. What may lead to this is the struggle for resource that initially would see the world go through war and struggle, and the human race becoming less forgiving of each other as they only want supporters of the fight for resource, not detractors. It would also be at this point, humans would start to elevate to type 2 on the Kardashev scale. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Where do you see the future of mankind? More accepting or less accepting of people and cultures? That's a nice question. On one hand, when people follow different ideologies, there will be some conflicts, some easy to resolve and others not so much. But if everyone follows the same ideology, the world would be fucking boring without any diversity of thoughts. My favourite prediction for far future if we were to survive is that traditional nation states won't exist. Instead we will have states based on different set of ideologies, with people being able to move to different states based on the ideology they like, provided they follow the rules of that state. Like there could be one right libertarian state, one Christian state, one socialist state, one state for those hedonistic pervs. Of course, some of these states could go extinct if they are not fit for survival. I have listened to a few interesting theories that touch on this, and I feel there will become a point when we become citizens of the world and not of a country. What may lead to this is the struggle for resource that initially would see the world go through war and struggle, and the human race becoming less forgiving of each other as they only want supporters of the fight for resource, not detractors. It would also be at this point, humans would start to elevate to type 2 on the Kardashev scale." I have heard the citizens of world theory before. I don't see it happening anytime soon. For it to happen, we need mass propaganda to instill similar values into everyone. But here will also be some people who oppose these ideals and use same propaganda to oppose the values. The EU is trying to do the same thing albeit at a European scale and you can already see the problems with it. For the government to do anything, you need most people to agree on something, which is really hard when you have people from different countries with different views and challeges. What might work for an average German would probably piss off an average Polish person. So I see the citizens of world idea as a pipe dream unless there is a new way to spread mass propaganda or someone manages to do one hell of a powergrab. Until then, people will be divided, maybe not based on nation states, but by other factors. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Where do you see the future of mankind? More accepting or less accepting of people and cultures? That's a nice question. On one hand, when people follow different ideologies, there will be some conflicts, some easy to resolve and others not so much. But if everyone follows the same ideology, the world would be fucking boring without any diversity of thoughts. My favourite prediction for far future if we were to survive is that traditional nation states won't exist. Instead we will have states based on different set of ideologies, with people being able to move to different states based on the ideology they like, provided they follow the rules of that state. Like there could be one right libertarian state, one Christian state, one socialist state, one state for those hedonistic pervs. Of course, some of these states could go extinct if they are not fit for survival. I have listened to a few interesting theories that touch on this, and I feel there will become a point when we become citizens of the world and not of a country. What may lead to this is the struggle for resource that initially would see the world go through war and struggle, and the human race becoming less forgiving of each other as they only want supporters of the fight for resource, not detractors. It would also be at this point, humans would start to elevate to type 2 on the Kardashev scale. I have heard the citizens of world theory before. I don't see it happening anytime soon. For it to happen, we need mass propaganda to instill similar values into everyone. But here will also be some people who oppose these ideals and use same propaganda to oppose the values. The EU is trying to do the same thing albeit at a European scale and you can already see the problems with it. For the government to do anything, you need most people to agree on something, which is really hard when you have people from different countries with different views and challeges. What might work for an average German would probably piss off an average Polish person. So I see the citizens of world idea as a pipe dream unless there is a new way to spread mass propaganda or someone manages to do one hell of a powergrab. Until then, people will be divided, maybe not based on nation states, but by other factors." I don't think the citizens of the world will come about through cooperation, it will come out of war driven by necessity for energy and an understanding that it can only be one way, globally or bust. We are approx 100 years away from type 1, at type 1 it is expected we can harness the energy of the planet and parent star. Type 2 will take a lot longer to reach but that will provide energy equal to the sun. Why is this important? Travel and technology, the energy to travel through space and manipulate the environments requires energy not in our grasp right now. It takes everything we understand now to travel the relatively small distance to the moon. This human direction will not be achievable with warring factions of relatively speaking cavemen. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Where do you see the future of mankind? More accepting or less accepting of people and cultures? That's a nice question. On one hand, when people follow different ideologies, there will be some conflicts, some easy to resolve and others not so much. But if everyone follows the same ideology, the world would be fucking boring without any diversity of thoughts. My favourite prediction for far future if we were to survive is that traditional nation states won't exist. Instead we will have states based on different set of ideologies, with people being able to move to different states based on the ideology they like, provided they follow the rules of that state. Like there could be one right libertarian state, one Christian state, one socialist state, one state for those hedonistic pervs. Of course, some of these states could go extinct if they are not fit for survival. I have listened to a few interesting theories that touch on this, and I feel there will become a point when we become citizens of the world and not of a country. What may lead to this is the struggle for resource that initially would see the world go through war and struggle, and the human race becoming less forgiving of each other as they only want supporters of the fight for resource, not detractors. It would also be at this point, humans would start to elevate to type 2 on the Kardashev scale. I have heard the citizens of world theory before. I don't see it happening anytime soon. For it to happen, we need mass propaganda to instill similar values into everyone. But here will also be some people who oppose these ideals and use same propaganda to oppose the values. The EU is trying to do the same thing albeit at a European scale and you can already see the problems with it. For the government to do anything, you need most people to agree on something, which is really hard when you have people from different countries with different views and challeges. What might work for an average German would probably piss off an average Polish person. So I see the citizens of world idea as a pipe dream unless there is a new way to spread mass propaganda or someone manages to do one hell of a powergrab. Until then, people will be divided, maybe not based on nation states, but by other factors. I don't think the citizens of the world will come about through cooperation, it will come out of war driven by necessity for energy and an understanding that it can only be one way, globally or bust. We are approx 100 years away from type 1, at type 1 it is expected we can harness the energy of the planet and parent star. Type 2 will take a lot longer to reach but that will provide energy equal to the sun. Why is this important? Travel and technology, the energy to travel through space and manipulate the environments requires energy not in our grasp right now. It takes everything we understand now to travel the relatively small distance to the moon. This human direction will not be achievable with warring factions of relatively speaking cavemen. " If it is through war, sure it's quite possible. Whether it's good or bad for us, it's hard to say. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I an genuinely pleased with this thread. An actual discussion and exchange of ideas without descending into factionalism and arguing. Maybe there IS hope for the human race? One of the new “nations” could be based on sexual liberation? Fabland "We need to write a FabLand manifesto that works as a blueprint for what the constitution in that country would look like | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Where do you see the future of mankind? More accepting or less accepting of people and cultures? That's a nice question. On one hand, when people follow different ideologies, there will be some conflicts, some easy to resolve and others not so much. But if everyone follows the same ideology, the world would be fucking boring without any diversity of thoughts. My favourite prediction for far future if we were to survive is that traditional nation states won't exist. Instead we will have states based on different set of ideologies, with people being able to move to different states based on the ideology they like, provided they follow the rules of that state. Like there could be one right libertarian state, one Christian state, one socialist state, one state for those hedonistic pervs. Of course, some of these states could go extinct if they are not fit for survival. I have listened to a few interesting theories that touch on this, and I feel there will become a point when we become citizens of the world and not of a country. What may lead to this is the struggle for resource that initially would see the world go through war and struggle, and the human race becoming less forgiving of each other as they only want supporters of the fight for resource, not detractors. It would also be at this point, humans would start to elevate to type 2 on the Kardashev scale. I have heard the citizens of world theory before. I don't see it happening anytime soon. For it to happen, we need mass propaganda to instill similar values into everyone. But here will also be some people who oppose these ideals and use same propaganda to oppose the values. The EU is trying to do the same thing albeit at a European scale and you can already see the problems with it. For the government to do anything, you need most people to agree on something, which is really hard when you have people from different countries with different views and challeges. What might work for an average German would probably piss off an average Polish person. So I see the citizens of world idea as a pipe dream unless there is a new way to spread mass propaganda or someone manages to do one hell of a powergrab. Until then, people will be divided, maybe not based on nation states, but by other factors. I don't think the citizens of the world will come about through cooperation, it will come out of war driven by necessity for energy and an understanding that it can only be one way, globally or bust. We are approx 100 years away from type 1, at type 1 it is expected we can harness the energy of the planet and parent star. Type 2 will take a lot longer to reach but that will provide energy equal to the sun. Why is this important? Travel and technology, the energy to travel through space and manipulate the environments requires energy not in our grasp right now. It takes everything we understand now to travel the relatively small distance to the moon. This human direction will not be achievable with warring factions of relatively speaking cavemen. If it is through war, sure it's quite possible. Whether it's good or bad for us, it's hard to say." The one very interesting part of this that I managed to leave out, is the common language type 1 civilisation will speak. The ability to communicate effectively with anyone would be a huge step forward and would certainly help in FabLand  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Where do you see the future of mankind? More accepting or less accepting of people and cultures? That's a nice question. On one hand, when people follow different ideologies, there will be some conflicts, some easy to resolve and others not so much. But if everyone follows the same ideology, the world would be fucking boring without any diversity of thoughts. My favourite prediction for far future if we were to survive is that traditional nation states won't exist. Instead we will have states based on different set of ideologies, with people being able to move to different states based on the ideology they like, provided they follow the rules of that state. Like there could be one right libertarian state, one Christian state, one socialist state, one state for those hedonistic pervs. Of course, some of these states could go extinct if they are not fit for survival. I have listened to a few interesting theories that touch on this, and I feel there will become a point when we become citizens of the world and not of a country. What may lead to this is the struggle for resource that initially would see the world go through war and struggle, and the human race becoming less forgiving of each other as they only want supporters of the fight for resource, not detractors. It would also be at this point, humans would start to elevate to type 2 on the Kardashev scale. I have heard the citizens of world theory before. I don't see it happening anytime soon. For it to happen, we need mass propaganda to instill similar values into everyone. But here will also be some people who oppose these ideals and use same propaganda to oppose the values. The EU is trying to do the same thing albeit at a European scale and you can already see the problems with it. For the government to do anything, you need most people to agree on something, which is really hard when you have people from different countries with different views and challeges. What might work for an average German would probably piss off an average Polish person. So I see the citizens of world idea as a pipe dream unless there is a new way to spread mass propaganda or someone manages to do one hell of a powergrab. Until then, people will be divided, maybe not based on nation states, but by other factors. I don't think the citizens of the world will come about through cooperation, it will come out of war driven by necessity for energy and an understanding that it can only be one way, globally or bust. We are approx 100 years away from type 1, at type 1 it is expected we can harness the energy of the planet and parent star. Type 2 will take a lot longer to reach but that will provide energy equal to the sun. Why is this important? Travel and technology, the energy to travel through space and manipulate the environments requires energy not in our grasp right now. It takes everything we understand now to travel the relatively small distance to the moon. This human direction will not be achievable with warring factions of relatively speaking cavemen. If it is through war, sure it's quite possible. Whether it's good or bad for us, it's hard to say. The one very interesting part of this that I managed to leave out, is the common language type 1 civilisation will speak. The ability to communicate effectively with anyone would be a huge step forward and would certainly help in FabLand "I don't recall coming across this Type 1 and Type 2 terminology before. Very intriguing. Can you point me to a good source to learn more? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?" The option of getting elected and then forcing through extreme laws is open to any party. I agree an extreme party is more likely to do that but it does not stop others. When SKS walks into downing street with a decent majority, is there anything to stop him forcing that extreme ideas no matter how unlikely that is to happen?. I think the Lord's could delay it for a bit but the other question is can the monarch stop it or are they forced into signing? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country? The option of getting elected and then forcing through extreme laws is open to any party. I agree an extreme party is more likely to do that but it does not stop others. When SKS walks into downing street with a decent majority, is there anything to stop him forcing that extreme ideas no matter how unlikely that is to happen?. I think the Lord's could delay it for a bit but the other question is can the monarch stop it or are they forced into signing?" What extreme policy from KS scares you most? I’m not sure he’s got an extreme thought in his head. Centrists don’t. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country? The option of getting elected and then forcing through extreme laws is open to any party. I agree an extreme party is more likely to do that but it does not stop others. When SKS walks into downing street with a decent majority, is there anything to stop him forcing that extreme ideas no matter how unlikely that is to happen?. I think the Lord's could delay it for a bit but the other question is can the monarch stop it or are they forced into signing?" The only reason SKS is allowed to get anywhere near power is because he has absolutely no plans to make any meaningful change, never mind "forcing that extreme ideas". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country? The option of getting elected and then forcing through extreme laws is open to any party. I agree an extreme party is more likely to do that but it does not stop others. When SKS walks into downing street with a decent majority, is there anything to stop him forcing that extreme ideas no matter how unlikely that is to happen?. I think the Lord's could delay it for a bit but the other question is can the monarch stop it or are they forced into signing? What extreme policy from KS scares you most? I’m not sure he’s got an extreme thought in his head. Centrists don’t. " He didn't say SKS had extreme policies, he said any party with a large enough majority could force through and extreme policy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country? The option of getting elected and then forcing through extreme laws is open to any party. I agree an extreme party is more likely to do that but it does not stop others. When SKS walks into downing street with a decent majority, is there anything to stop him forcing that extreme ideas no matter how unlikely that is to happen?. I think the Lord's could delay it for a bit but the other question is can the monarch stop it or are they forced into signing? What extreme policy from KS scares you most? I’m not sure he’s got an extreme thought in his head. Centrists don’t. He didn't say SKS had extreme policies, he said any party with a large enough majority could force through and extreme policy. " And that’s true (except for the second chamber, thankfully - a reason why it should never be done away with). But the poster in question has previously suggested some very dubious things about Starmer’s politics, which are middle of the road at best. Colour me intrigued, is all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country? The option of getting elected and then forcing through extreme laws is open to any party. I agree an extreme party is more likely to do that but it does not stop others. When SKS walks into downing street with a decent majority, is there anything to stop him forcing that extreme ideas no matter how unlikely that is to happen?. I think the Lord's could delay it for a bit but the other question is can the monarch stop it or are they forced into signing? What extreme policy from KS scares you most? I’m not sure he’s got an extreme thought in his head. Centrists don’t. He didn't say SKS had extreme policies, he said any party with a large enough majority could force through and extreme policy. And that’s true (except for the second chamber, thankfully - a reason why it should never be done away with). But the poster in question has previously suggested some very dubious things about Starmer’s politics, which are middle of the road at best. Colour me intrigued, is all." Dubious policies are not the same as extreme policies. The second chamber is politically appointed so it stands to reason that its possible should a majority be achieved there too. Ps. Before you mention it I know the Tories are the largest party in the HoL. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country? The option of getting elected and then forcing through extreme laws is open to any party. I agree an extreme party is more likely to do that but it does not stop others. When SKS walks into downing street with a decent majority, is there anything to stop him forcing that extreme ideas no matter how unlikely that is to happen?. I think the Lord's could delay it for a bit but the other question is can the monarch stop it or are they forced into signing? What extreme policy from KS scares you most? I’m not sure he’s got an extreme thought in his head. Centrists don’t. He didn't say SKS had extreme policies, he said any party with a large enough majority could force through and extreme policy. And that’s true (except for the second chamber, thankfully - a reason why it should never be done away with). But the poster in question has previously suggested some very dubious things about Starmer’s politics, which are middle of the road at best. Colour me intrigued, is all. Dubious policies are not the same as extreme policies. The second chamber is politically appointed so it stands to reason that its possible should a majority be achieved there too. Ps. Before you mention it I know the Tories are the largest party in the HoL." It is possible, but the Lords is traditionally a lot less reactive and more level headed than the commons. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country? The option of getting elected and then forcing through extreme laws is open to any party. I agree an extreme party is more likely to do that but it does not stop others. When SKS walks into downing street with a decent majority, is there anything to stop him forcing that extreme ideas no matter how unlikely that is to happen?. I think the Lord's could delay it for a bit but the other question is can the monarch stop it or are they forced into signing? What extreme policy from KS scares you most? I’m not sure he’s got an extreme thought in his head. Centrists don’t. He didn't say SKS had extreme policies, he said any party with a large enough majority could force through and extreme policy. And that’s true (except for the second chamber, thankfully - a reason why it should never be done away with). But the poster in question has previously suggested some very dubious things about Starmer’s politics, which are middle of the road at best. Colour me intrigued, is all. Dubious policies are not the same as extreme policies. The second chamber is politically appointed so it stands to reason that its possible should a majority be achieved there too. Ps. Before you mention it I know the Tories are the largest party in the HoL. It is possible, but the Lords is traditionally a lot less reactive and more level headed than the commons." Maybe so, but possible. Now seeing as you're so hit on demanding apologies, maybe you should go apologise for getting it wrong | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country? The option of getting elected and then forcing through extreme laws is open to any party. I agree an extreme party is more likely to do that but it does not stop others. When SKS walks into downing street with a decent majority, is there anything to stop him forcing that extreme ideas no matter how unlikely that is to happen?. I think the Lord's could delay it for a bit but the other question is can the monarch stop it or are they forced into signing? What extreme policy from KS scares you most? I’m not sure he’s got an extreme thought in his head. Centrists don’t. He didn't say SKS had extreme policies, he said any party with a large enough majority could force through and extreme policy. And that’s true (except for the second chamber, thankfully - a reason why it should never be done away with). But the poster in question has previously suggested some very dubious things about Starmer’s politics, which are middle of the road at best. Colour me intrigued, is all. Dubious policies are not the same as extreme policies. The second chamber is politically appointed so it stands to reason that its possible should a majority be achieved there too. Ps. Before you mention it I know the Tories are the largest party in the HoL. It is possible, but the Lords is traditionally a lot less reactive and more level headed than the commons. Maybe so, but possible. Now seeing as you're so hit on demanding apologies, maybe you should go apologise for getting it wrong "I’ll apologise if the poster wasn’t suggesting that Starmer might introduce extreme policies, of course. Though some would consider a simple tax band change as extreme | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country? The option of getting elected and then forcing through extreme laws is open to any party. I agree an extreme party is more likely to do that but it does not stop others. When SKS walks into downing street with a decent majority, is there anything to stop him forcing that extreme ideas no matter how unlikely that is to happen?. I think the Lord's could delay it for a bit but the other question is can the monarch stop it or are they forced into signing? What extreme policy from KS scares you most? I’m not sure he’s got an extreme thought in his head. Centrists don’t. He didn't say SKS had extreme policies, he said any party with a large enough majority could force through and extreme policy. And that’s true (except for the second chamber, thankfully - a reason why it should never be done away with). But the poster in question has previously suggested some very dubious things about Starmer’s politics, which are middle of the road at best. Colour me intrigued, is all. Dubious policies are not the same as extreme policies. The second chamber is politically appointed so it stands to reason that its possible should a majority be achieved there too. Ps. Before you mention it I know the Tories are the largest party in the HoL. It is possible, but the Lords is traditionally a lot less reactive and more level headed than the commons. Maybe so, but possible. Now seeing as you're so hit on demanding apologies, maybe you should go apologise for getting it wrong
I’ll apologise if the poster wasn’t suggesting that Starmer might introduce extreme policies, of course.
Though some would consider a simple tax band change as extreme "You've jumped to a conclusion. As you'd say, you've had a 'mare there | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country? The option of getting elected and then forcing through extreme laws is open to any party. I agree an extreme party is more likely to do that but it does not stop others. When SKS walks into downing street with a decent majority, is there anything to stop him forcing that extreme ideas no matter how unlikely that is to happen?. I think the Lord's could delay it for a bit but the other question is can the monarch stop it or are they forced into signing? What extreme policy from KS scares you most? I’m not sure he’s got an extreme thought in his head. Centrists don’t. He didn't say SKS had extreme policies, he said any party with a large enough majority could force through and extreme policy. And that’s true (except for the second chamber, thankfully - a reason why it should never be done away with). But the poster in question has previously suggested some very dubious things about Starmer’s politics, which are middle of the road at best. Colour me intrigued, is all. Dubious policies are not the same as extreme policies. The second chamber is politically appointed so it stands to reason that its possible should a majority be achieved there too. Ps. Before you mention it I know the Tories are the largest party in the HoL. It is possible, but the Lords is traditionally a lot less reactive and more level headed than the commons. Maybe so, but possible. Now seeing as you're so hit on demanding apologies, maybe you should go apologise for getting it wrong
I’ll apologise if the poster wasn’t suggesting that Starmer might introduce extreme policies, of course.
Though some would consider a simple tax band change as extreme
You've jumped to a conclusion. As you'd say, you've had a 'mare there "Am still awaiting an apology from yesterday, and I never got one from he who shall not be named (who appears to have vanished) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country? The option of getting elected and then forcing through extreme laws is open to any party. I agree an extreme party is more likely to do that but it does not stop others. When SKS walks into downing street with a decent majority, is there anything to stop him forcing that extreme ideas no matter how unlikely that is to happen?. I think the Lord's could delay it for a bit but the other question is can the monarch stop it or are they forced into signing? What extreme policy from KS scares you most? I’m not sure he’s got an extreme thought in his head. Centrists don’t. He didn't say SKS had extreme policies, he said any party with a large enough majority could force through and extreme policy. And that’s true (except for the second chamber, thankfully - a reason why it should never be done away with). But the poster in question has previously suggested some very dubious things about Starmer’s politics, which are middle of the road at best. Colour me intrigued, is all. Dubious policies are not the same as extreme policies. The second chamber is politically appointed so it stands to reason that its possible should a majority be achieved there too. Ps. Before you mention it I know the Tories are the largest party in the HoL. It is possible, but the Lords is traditionally a lot less reactive and more level headed than the commons. Maybe so, but possible. Now seeing as you're so hit on demanding apologies, maybe you should go apologise for getting it wrong
I’ll apologise if the poster wasn’t suggesting that Starmer might introduce extreme policies, of course.
Though some would consider a simple tax band change as extreme
You've jumped to a conclusion. As you'd say, you've had a 'mare there
Am still awaiting an apology from yesterday, and I never got one from he who shall not be named (who appears to have vanished) "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country? The option of getting elected and then forcing through extreme laws is open to any party. I agree an extreme party is more likely to do that but it does not stop others. When SKS walks into downing street with a decent majority, is there anything to stop him forcing that extreme ideas no matter how unlikely that is to happen?. I think the Lord's could delay it for a bit but the other question is can the monarch stop it or are they forced into signing? What extreme policy from KS scares you most? I’m not sure he’s got an extreme thought in his head. Centrists don’t. " I clearly did not say SKS had any extreme policies. I was saying that he could use the same option as extreme parties should they get into power. If it makes the example more palatable, what's stopping Sunak from forcing through an extreme policy. Some say Rwanda is extreme though I think this thread is about even more extreme policies but shows this option is open to any party | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country? The option of getting elected and then forcing through extreme laws is open to any party. I agree an extreme party is more likely to do that but it does not stop others. When SKS walks into downing street with a decent majority, is there anything to stop him forcing that extreme ideas no matter how unlikely that is to happen?. I think the Lord's could delay it for a bit but the other question is can the monarch stop it or are they forced into signing? What extreme policy from KS scares you most? I’m not sure he’s got an extreme thought in his head. Centrists don’t. He didn't say SKS had extreme policies, he said any party with a large enough majority could force through and extreme policy. And that’s true (except for the second chamber, thankfully - a reason why it should never be done away with). But the poster in question has previously suggested some very dubious things about Starmer’s politics, which are middle of the road at best. Colour me intrigued, is all. Dubious policies are not the same as extreme policies. The second chamber is politically appointed so it stands to reason that its possible should a majority be achieved there too. Ps. Before you mention it I know the Tories are the largest party in the HoL. It is possible, but the Lords is traditionally a lot less reactive and more level headed than the commons. Maybe so, but possible. Now seeing as you're so hit on demanding apologies, maybe you should go apologise for getting it wrong
I’ll apologise if the poster wasn’t suggesting that Starmer might introduce extreme policies, of course.
Though some would consider a simple tax band change as extreme
You've jumped to a conclusion. As you'd say, you've had a 'mare there
Am still awaiting an apology from yesterday, and I never got one from he who shall not be named (who appears to have vanished) "You will be waiting a very long time for an apology from me on your interactions in the forum over the last couple of days… I tend not to bow down to those who try and dictate narratives through spurious and loaded scenarios. However, If I feel I misjudged your wording or sentiment I will not hesitate to offer an apology. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country? The option of getting elected and then forcing through extreme laws is open to any party. I agree an extreme party is more likely to do that but it does not stop others. When SKS walks into downing street with a decent majority, is there anything to stop him forcing that extreme ideas no matter how unlikely that is to happen?. I think the Lord's could delay it for a bit but the other question is can the monarch stop it or are they forced into signing? What extreme policy from KS scares you most? I’m not sure he’s got an extreme thought in his head. Centrists don’t. He didn't say SKS had extreme policies, he said any party with a large enough majority could force through and extreme policy. And that’s true (except for the second chamber, thankfully - a reason why it should never be done away with). But the poster in question has previously suggested some very dubious things about Starmer’s politics, which are middle of the road at best. Colour me intrigued, is all. Dubious policies are not the same as extreme policies. The second chamber is politically appointed so it stands to reason that its possible should a majority be achieved there too. Ps. Before you mention it I know the Tories are the largest party in the HoL. It is possible, but the Lords is traditionally a lot less reactive and more level headed than the commons. Maybe so, but possible. Now seeing as you're so hit on demanding apologies, maybe you should go apologise for getting it wrong
I’ll apologise if the poster wasn’t suggesting that Starmer might introduce extreme policies, of course.
Though some would consider a simple tax band change as extreme
You've jumped to a conclusion. As you'd say, you've had a 'mare there
Am still awaiting an apology from yesterday, and I never got one from he who shall not be named (who appears to have vanished)
You will be waiting a very long time for an apology from me on your interactions in the forum over the last couple of days… I tend not to bow down to those who try and dictate narratives through spurious and loaded scenarios.
However, If I feel I misjudged your wording or sentiment I will not hesitate to offer an apology.
"I just don’t think it’s anti-democratic to point out that Brexit is a crock. Nor does it mean one hasn’t accepted the result | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Where do you see the future of mankind? More accepting or less accepting of people and cultures? That's a nice question. On one hand, when people follow different ideologies, there will be some conflicts, some easy to resolve and others not so much. But if everyone follows the same ideology, the world would be fucking boring without any diversity of thoughts. My favourite prediction for far future if we were to survive is that traditional nation states won't exist. Instead we will have states based on different set of ideologies, with people being able to move to different states based on the ideology they like, provided they follow the rules of that state. Like there could be one right libertarian state, one Christian state, one socialist state, one state for those hedonistic pervs. Of course, some of these states could go extinct if they are not fit for survival. I have listened to a few interesting theories that touch on this, and I feel there will become a point when we become citizens of the world and not of a country. What may lead to this is the struggle for resource that initially would see the world go through war and struggle, and the human race becoming less forgiving of each other as they only want supporters of the fight for resource, not detractors. It would also be at this point, humans would start to elevate to type 2 on the Kardashev scale. I have heard the citizens of world theory before. I don't see it happening anytime soon. For it to happen, we need mass propaganda to instill similar values into everyone. But here will also be some people who oppose these ideals and use same propaganda to oppose the values. The EU is trying to do the same thing albeit at a European scale and you can already see the problems with it. For the government to do anything, you need most people to agree on something, which is really hard when you have people from different countries with different views and challeges. What might work for an average German would probably piss off an average Polish person. So I see the citizens of world idea as a pipe dream unless there is a new way to spread mass propaganda or someone manages to do one hell of a powergrab. Until then, people will be divided, maybe not based on nation states, but by other factors. I don't think the citizens of the world will come about through cooperation, it will come out of war driven by necessity for energy and an understanding that it can only be one way, globally or bust. We are approx 100 years away from type 1, at type 1 it is expected we can harness the energy of the planet and parent star. Type 2 will take a lot longer to reach but that will provide energy equal to the sun. Why is this important? Travel and technology, the energy to travel through space and manipulate the environments requires energy not in our grasp right now. It takes everything we understand now to travel the relatively small distance to the moon. This human direction will not be achievable with warring factions of relatively speaking cavemen. If it is through war, sure it's quite possible. Whether it's good or bad for us, it's hard to say. The one very interesting part of this that I managed to leave out, is the common language type 1 civilisation will speak. The ability to communicate effectively with anyone would be a huge step forward and would certainly help in FabLand
I don't recall coming across this Type 1 and Type 2 terminology before. Very intriguing. Can you point me to a good source to learn more?"The initial concept is from the Kardashev scale, the theory can be seen from googling either type 1 civilisation or the name. I would however, look at that in the first instance and follow up on the follow up by Michio Kaku. Kaku, expands the realms of known possibility in a way that should stimulate the mind, whether you can support his theories or not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country? The option of getting elected and then forcing through extreme laws is open to any party. I agree an extreme party is more likely to do that but it does not stop others. When SKS walks into downing street with a decent majority, is there anything to stop him forcing that extreme ideas no matter how unlikely that is to happen?. I think the Lord's could delay it for a bit but the other question is can the monarch stop it or are they forced into signing? What extreme policy from KS scares you most? I’m not sure he’s got an extreme thought in his head. Centrists don’t. He didn't say SKS had extreme policies, he said any party with a large enough majority could force through and extreme policy. And that’s true (except for the second chamber, thankfully - a reason why it should never be done away with). But the poster in question has previously suggested some very dubious things about Starmer’s politics, which are middle of the road at best. Colour me intrigued, is all. Dubious policies are not the same as extreme policies. The second chamber is politically appointed so it stands to reason that its possible should a majority be achieved there too. Ps. Before you mention it I know the Tories are the largest party in the HoL. It is possible, but the Lords is traditionally a lot less reactive and more level headed than the commons. Maybe so, but possible. Now seeing as you're so hit on demanding apologies, maybe you should go apologise for getting it wrong
I’ll apologise if the poster wasn’t suggesting that Starmer might introduce extreme policies, of course.
Though some would consider a simple tax band change as extreme
You've jumped to a conclusion. As you'd say, you've had a 'mare there
Am still awaiting an apology from yesterday, and I never got one from he who shall not be named (who appears to have vanished)
You will be waiting a very long time for an apology from me on your interactions in the forum over the last couple of days… I tend not to bow down to those who try and dictate narratives through spurious and loaded scenarios.
However, If I feel I misjudged your wording or sentiment I will not hesitate to offer an apology.
I just don’t think it’s anti-democratic to point out that Brexit is a crock. Nor does it mean one hasn’t accepted the result "That in itself I can agree with, however I think you may be unaware of the challenges you throw into your arguments that make me feel you can’t accept the democratic will of the people. I’m more than happy to have that conversation in a thread created to discuss that topic, but I’m not going to keep participating in the derailment of every thread for you to shoehorn Brexit, fascism and racism into the conversation at every opportunity. I do have work that needs my attention, please do not assume I can be on here 24x7 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Where do you see the future of mankind? More accepting or less accepting of people and cultures? That's a nice question. On one hand, when people follow different ideologies, there will be some conflicts, some easy to resolve and others not so much. But if everyone follows the same ideology, the world would be fucking boring without any diversity of thoughts. My favourite prediction for far future if we were to survive is that traditional nation states won't exist. Instead we will have states based on different set of ideologies, with people being able to move to different states based on the ideology they like, provided they follow the rules of that state. Like there could be one right libertarian state, one Christian state, one socialist state, one state for those hedonistic pervs. Of course, some of these states could go extinct if they are not fit for survival. I have listened to a few interesting theories that touch on this, and I feel there will become a point when we become citizens of the world and not of a country. What may lead to this is the struggle for resource that initially would see the world go through war and struggle, and the human race becoming less forgiving of each other as they only want supporters of the fight for resource, not detractors. It would also be at this point, humans would start to elevate to type 2 on the Kardashev scale. I have heard the citizens of world theory before. I don't see it happening anytime soon. For it to happen, we need mass propaganda to instill similar values into everyone. But here will also be some people who oppose these ideals and use same propaganda to oppose the values. The EU is trying to do the same thing albeit at a European scale and you can already see the problems with it. For the government to do anything, you need most people to agree on something, which is really hard when you have people from different countries with different views and challeges. What might work for an average German would probably piss off an average Polish person. So I see the citizens of world idea as a pipe dream unless there is a new way to spread mass propaganda or someone manages to do one hell of a powergrab. Until then, people will be divided, maybe not based on nation states, but by other factors. I don't think the citizens of the world will come about through cooperation, it will come out of war driven by necessity for energy and an understanding that it can only be one way, globally or bust. We are approx 100 years away from type 1, at type 1 it is expected we can harness the energy of the planet and parent star. Type 2 will take a lot longer to reach but that will provide energy equal to the sun. Why is this important? Travel and technology, the energy to travel through space and manipulate the environments requires energy not in our grasp right now. It takes everything we understand now to travel the relatively small distance to the moon. This human direction will not be achievable with warring factions of relatively speaking cavemen. If it is through war, sure it's quite possible. Whether it's good or bad for us, it's hard to say. The one very interesting part of this that I managed to leave out, is the common language type 1 civilisation will speak. The ability to communicate effectively with anyone would be a huge step forward and would certainly help in FabLand
I don't recall coming across this Type 1 and Type 2 terminology before. Very intriguing. Can you point me to a good source to learn more?
The initial concept is from the Kardashev scale, the theory can be seen from googling either type 1 civilisation or the name.
I would however, look at that in the first instance and follow up on the follow up by Michio Kaku.
Kaku, expands the realms of known possibility in a way that should stimulate the mind, whether you can support his theories or not. " thanks will look into it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I an genuinely pleased with this thread. An actual discussion and exchange of ideas without descending into factionalism and arguing. Maybe there IS hope for the human race? One of the new “nations” could be based on sexual liberation? Fabland "You leave the thread for a few hours and it all goes to shit. Big sigh it was going so well! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?" Is there more extreme than the current governments who are supporting a genocide watched live on social media by billions of people? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe I am reading too much philosophy recently. But I think the answer to this question lies on whether you believe on moral absolutism/moral relativism/perspectivism, and if you believe in moral relativism, how far would you go to fight for your own values against others. Sorry for getting too deep
That sounds really interesting. Can/will you expand further?
There are three questions here:
1) Do you believe right wing extremism is morally right or wrong? Let's say we all believe it's morally wrong.
2) Do you believe in democracy?
3) Do you believe that your moral views about right wing extremism is absolute and universally correct?
Moral absolutists claim that there are universal moral principles, irrespective of the which society and which time we are talking about. Moral relativists claim that mortality keeps changing with times and different in different societies. There is moral perspectivism/constructivism which is a bit complex.
Democracy itself is more tilted towards moral relativism as you are asking people to make moral choices.
If you are supporter of democracy but also a moral absolutist, you need to clarify the paradox of what happens when people democratically vote for right wing extremism. Do you give up on democracy and want your views to be forced by banning the party? Or do you give up on your other moral views in favour of democracy, which probably means you are more of a moral relativist.
If you are a moral relativist and the population voted in favour of right wing extremism, you can say that while you don't like the outcome, there is nothing inherently wrong about it. You could just move out of the country to a society that matches your ideals.
Or you can perform a coup, become a dictator and force your moderate ideals on others, in which case you definitely do not care for democracy. You can justify it by saying that you are a moral relativist and you are a selfish power hungry person who forces his views on the rest of the world.
I know I did a terrible job at explaining this. There is a reason why books about these topics are huge. There isn't an easy way to simplify this.
You did a great job! Interesting stuff indeed. Would totally see myself as a Moral relativist. I studied history at degree level so the change in perspective over time and what was considered acceptable in society at a given moment is fascinating.
Yeah people who have a better understanding of history tend to be closer to moral relativists as they have seen enough crazy shit being done in the name of "moral good" "That mainly applies to Western history and it's disastrous experience with Theocracy. There are other civilisations who had their golden age of enlightenment prosperity peace and accepting the other under theocracy (not Christianity). Western intellectuals have a syndrome of intellectual racism where: If their western religion was bad for humanity other religions must the same at best or worse. History is not equivalent to western history. And western culture is not necessarily "The Culture With the High Moral ground". Ethni | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Is there more extreme than the current governments who are supporting a genocide watched live on social media by billions of people? " Yes. The ones who like to cheer actual genocide and actively plan the industrial-scale killing together with the perpetrators. Like the Haj Amin el Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem during WW2 and his Middle Eastern friends. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That mainly applies to Western history and it's disastrous experience with Theocracy. There are other civilisations who had their golden age of enlightenment prosperity peace and accepting the other under theocracy (not Christianity). Western intellectuals have a syndrome of intellectual racism where: If their western religion was bad for humanity other religions must the same at best or worse. History is not equivalent to western history. And western culture is not necessarily "The Culture With the High Moral ground". Ethni" Did you miss some of your post at the end? That is an interesting POV. Can you elaborate further and provide some examples? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"it all depends who defines what is extreme Russia & China are able to define almost any opposition party as extremist & ban it " Which is the fear of what the UK could become if we adopted this | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"it all depends who defines what is extreme Russia & China are able to define almost any opposition party as extremist & ban it Which is the fear of what the UK could become if we adopted this" The most active of progressive liberals are leading us there, through cancel culture. University unions chomp at the bit to out do each other in being offended, which goes onto encourage censorship and stifle debate. Suddenly we now have people thinking right wing extremism is anyone who questions climate change views, trans rights, or having a view of supporting the actual country we live in. I would be interested in the outside influences of the CCP and Russia, we know they are influencing youth and the public in general, by how much is what I would like to know. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"it all depends who defines what is extreme Russia & China are able to define almost any opposition party as extremist & ban it Which is the fear of what the UK could become if we adopted this The most active of progressive liberals are leading us there, through cancel culture. University unions chomp at the bit to out do each other in being offended, which goes onto encourage censorship and stifle debate. Suddenly we now have people thinking right wing extremism is anyone who questions climate change views, trans rights, or having a view of supporting the actual country we live in. " Do you REALLY believe that? Not saying that doesn’t happen or there aren’t some who do that. But is it the universal truth you seem to be portraying? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"it all depends who defines what is extreme Russia & China are able to define almost any opposition party as extremist & ban it Which is the fear of what the UK could become if we adopted this The most active of progressive liberals are leading us there, through cancel culture. University unions chomp at the bit to out do each other in being offended, which goes onto encourage censorship and stifle debate. Suddenly we now have people thinking right wing extremism is anyone who questions climate change views, trans rights, or having a view of supporting the actual country we live in. I would be interested in the outside influences of the CCP and Russia, we know they are influencing youth and the public in general, by how much is what I would like to know. " Russia certainly has an interest in unsettling the politics of the west, and has proven links to the British political class. Their agenda is unlikely to be teaching wokeness in universities though - the links appear to be with the Tory party, reform and their acolytes predominantly. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Russia certainly has an interest in unsettling the politics of the west, and has proven links to the British political class. Their agenda is unlikely to be teaching wokeness in universities though - the links appear to be with the Tory party, reform and their acolytes predominantly." Russia had demonstrated a propensity to support any agenda or end that provokes division, whether right, left or anti-science. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Russia certainly has an interest in unsettling the politics of the west, and has proven links to the British political class. Their agenda is unlikely to be teaching wokeness in universities though - the links appear to be with the Tory party, reform and their acolytes predominantly. Russia had demonstrated a propensity to support any agenda or end that provokes division, whether right, left or anti-science." Russia, China, Iran all seem to be doing a pretty good job tbh. The West looks weak and clueless, intent on self destruction though poor foreign policy decisions and disastrous energy policies. Just a matter of time before Ukraine collapses. Be interesting to see what the West’s response will be then. Very dangerous times with an election coming up in the US and Biden desperate not to look weak and defeated. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"it all depends who defines what is extreme Russia & China are able to define almost any opposition party as extremist & ban it Which is the fear of what the UK could become if we adopted this The most active of progressive liberals are leading us there, through cancel culture. University unions chomp at the bit to out do each other in being offended, which goes onto encourage censorship and stifle debate. Suddenly we now have people thinking right wing extremism is anyone who questions climate change views, trans rights, or having a view of supporting the actual country we live in. I would be interested in the outside influences of the CCP and Russia, we know they are influencing youth and the public in general, by how much is what I would like to know. Russia certainly has an interest in unsettling the politics of the west, and has proven links to the British political class. Their agenda is unlikely to be teaching wokeness in universities though - the links appear to be with the Tory party, reform and their acolytes predominantly." The West is already doing a great job at destroying itself from within. All Russia and China has to do is enjoy the show and stay sheltered while the storm passes away. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"it all depends who defines what is extreme Russia & China are able to define almost any opposition party as extremist & ban it Which is the fear of what the UK could become if we adopted this The most active of progressive liberals are leading us there, through cancel culture. University unions chomp at the bit to out do each other in being offended, which goes onto encourage censorship and stifle debate. Suddenly we now have people thinking right wing extremism is anyone who questions climate change views, trans rights, or having a view of supporting the actual country we live in. I would be interested in the outside influences of the CCP and Russia, we know they are influencing youth and the public in general, by how much is what I would like to know. Russia certainly has an interest in unsettling the politics of the west, and has proven links to the British political class. Their agenda is unlikely to be teaching wokeness in universities though - the links appear to be with the Tory party, reform and their acolytes predominantly." I'm not sure that is correct. I seem to remember a Russian who took immunity in the US back in the 70's - 80's, who spoke about how the Russians were encouraging what we would call woke lifestyle choices then to weaken the community, and it was long term (years) plan. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country? 1) Not regardless of policies, no. A party who stands on an extreme policy (which would be a nightmare to agree on what ‘extreme’ means) should not be permitted to put that policy to the public. From the other thread - a theoretical proposed policy about repatriation of foreign born legal citizens should not be acceptable in a manifesto. 2) if 1 was controlled adequately then 2 ceases to be a problem. If however such a policy made it to law, then upstanding citizens would be faced with the choice of of opposition (potentially by violence with associated risks) or to leave the country in question. " But how can you decide what manifesto another party runs on . If I decided in the morning to form a party that wants to send everyone that's not white to somewhere in Africa I should be allowed too do so . And when it comes election time it's up to the people to decide if they want that party in power . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"m But how can you decide what manifesto another party runs on . If I decided in the morning to form a party that wants to send everyone that's not white to somewhere in Africa I should be allowed too do so . And when it comes election time it's up to the people to decide if they want that party in power . " No, you shouldn’t be able to run on a platform of ethnic cleansing. Seriously. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" But how can you decide what manifesto another party runs on . If I decided in the morning to form a party that wants to send everyone that's not white to somewhere in Africa I should be allowed too do so . And when it comes election time it's up to the people to decide if they want that party in power . " If someone then runs on a manifesto that they kill all people in your party and get 36% of the vote, which is the largest party... Then they can kill you guys. Right? Where do you draw the line? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"m But how can you decide what manifesto another party runs on . If I decided in the morning to form a party that wants to send everyone that's not white to somewhere in Africa I should be allowed too do so . And when it comes election time it's up to the people to decide if they want that party in power . No, you shouldn’t be able to run on a platform of ethnic cleansing. Seriously. " I'm not looking for ethnic cleansing! My point is any party or any individual should be allowed run on there beliefs. No matter how ludicrous they are . It's the voters discission after all that elects the government. Buy saying any one party is too extreme is taking away the voters choice. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" But how can you decide what manifesto another party runs on . If I decided in the morning to form a party that wants to send everyone that's not white to somewhere in Africa I should be allowed too do so . And when it comes election time it's up to the people to decide if they want that party in power . If someone then runs on a manifesto that they kill all people in your party and get 36% of the vote, which is the largest party... Then they can kill you guys. Right? Where do you draw the line?" and what if the extreme party had 55% | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" But how can you decide what manifesto another party runs on . If I decided in the morning to form a party that wants to send everyone that's not white to somewhere in Africa I should be allowed too do so . And when it comes election time it's up to the people to decide if they want that party in power . If someone then runs on a manifesto that they kill all people in your party and get 36% of the vote, which is the largest party... Then they can kill you guys. Right? Where do you draw the line? and what if the extreme party had 55% " No difference. Where do you draw the line as to what is acceptable if as majority want or demand it? Democracy does not necessarily equal correct, right or good. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"m But how can you decide what manifesto another party runs on . If I decided in the morning to form a party that wants to send everyone that's not white to somewhere in Africa I should be allowed too do so . And when it comes election time it's up to the people to decide if they want that party in power . No, you shouldn’t be able to run on a platform of ethnic cleansing. Seriously. I'm not looking for ethnic cleansing! My point is any party or any individual should be allowed run on there beliefs. No matter how ludicrous they are . It's the voters discission after all that elects the government. Buy saying any one party is too extreme is taking away the voters choice. " You literally gave an example of a party running on a platform of ethnic cleansing. No, they shouldn’t be allowed to do so. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"m But how can you decide what manifesto another party runs on . If I decided in the morning to form a party that wants to send everyone that's not white to somewhere in Africa I should be allowed too do so . And when it comes election time it's up to the people to decide if they want that party in power . No, you shouldn’t be able to run on a platform of ethnic cleansing. Seriously. I'm not looking for ethnic cleansing! My point is any party or any individual should be allowed run on there beliefs. No matter how ludicrous they are . It's the voters discission after all that elects the government. Buy saying any one party is too extreme is taking away the voters choice. You literally gave an example of a party running on a platform of ethnic cleansing. No, they shouldn’t be allowed to do so." Who has the right then to decide that? Whoever is in power? The people in power right now are literally supporting the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians regardless of them pretending not to. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" But how can you decide what manifesto another party runs on . If I decided in the morning to form a party that wants to send everyone that's not white to somewhere in Africa I should be allowed too do so . And when it comes election time it's up to the people to decide if they want that party in power . If someone then runs on a manifesto that they kill all people in your party and get 36% of the vote, which is the largest party... Then they can kill you guys. Right? Where do you draw the line? and what if the extreme party had 55% No difference. Where do you draw the line as to what is acceptable if as majority want or demand it? Democracy does not necessarily equal correct, right or good." It's a dilemma then! Who gets to decide what's right and wrong if it's not the democratic majority? The Elite turned up to Degenerate War mongers and Epstein friends. So they are even worse then the majority. Also history tells us that the majority can easily be brainwashed in certain direction. Suicide cults are a good example for that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?" Why would anyone want to ban them ? The amount of votes that they wouls attract are so small that they are hardly ever worth thinking about. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?Why would anyone want to ban them ? The amount of votes that they wouls attract are so small that they are hardly ever worth thinking about. " Never underestimate the ability of the public to make terrible decisions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" But how can you decide what manifesto another party runs on . If I decided in the morning to form a party that wants to send everyone that's not white to somewhere in Africa I should be allowed too do so . And when it comes election time it's up to the people to decide if they want that party in power . If someone then runs on a manifesto that they kill all people in your party and get 36% of the vote, which is the largest party... Then they can kill you guys. Right? Where do you draw the line? and what if the extreme party had 55% No difference. Where do you draw the line as to what is acceptable if as majority want or demand it? Democracy does not necessarily equal correct, right or good. It's a dilemma then! Who gets to decide what's right and wrong if it's not the democratic majority? The Elite turned up to Degenerate War mongers and Epstein friends. So they are even worse then the majority. Also history tells us that the majority can easily be brainwashed in certain direction. Suicide cults are a good example for that. " Amazing how people can be brainwashed into becoming a martyr.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?Why would anyone want to ban them ? The amount of votes that they wouls attract are so small that they are hardly ever worth thinking about. " You didn’t actually read the question Pat! This is a philosophical debate... “what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?” Are you able to enter this discussion? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?Why would anyone want to ban them ? The amount of votes that they wouls attract are so small that they are hardly ever worth thinking about. You didn’t actually read the question Pat! This is a philosophical debate... “what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?” Are you able to enter this discussion?" I'm rather surprised everyone is looking at this from a western view point of extreme left and right factions taking the majority share of public support. Iran, is great example of a government that rules by fear, intimidation and the real threat of death if you go against the state narratives. The people who live there, how are they dealt with when found to have the extremist views of democracy and freedoms, what are their options? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?Why would anyone want to ban them ? The amount of votes that they wouls attract are so small that they are hardly ever worth thinking about. You didn’t actually read the question Pat! This is a philosophical debate... “what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?” Are you able to enter this discussion?" I will detailed discussions to others . As far as the UK is concerned I will just accept things as they are | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?Why would anyone want to ban them ? The amount of votes that they wouls attract are so small that they are hardly ever worth thinking about. You didn’t actually read the question Pat! This is a philosophical debate... “what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?” Are you able to enter this discussion? I'm rather surprised everyone is looking at this from a western view point of extreme left and right factions taking the majority share of public support. Iran, is great example of a government that rules by fear, intimidation and the real threat of death if you go against the state narratives. The people who live there, how are they dealt with when found to have the extremist views of democracy and freedoms, what are their options?" Good point though would I be correct in thinking that theocracy better aligns with right wing political ideologies than left wing? Certainly Communism sought to disband the church or reduce the influence whereas fascism utilised the church to further their aims (in Europe at least). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?Why would anyone want to ban them ? The amount of votes that they wouls attract are so small that they are hardly ever worth thinking about. You didn’t actually read the question Pat! This is a philosophical debate... “what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?” Are you able to enter this discussion? I will detailed discussions to others . As far as the UK is concerned I will just accept things as they are " Sorry not sure that makes sense? Please explain again. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?Why would anyone want to ban them ? The amount of votes that they wouls attract are so small that they are hardly ever worth thinking about. You didn’t actually read the question Pat! This is a philosophical debate... “what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?” Are you able to enter this discussion? I'm rather surprised everyone is looking at this from a western view point of extreme left and right factions taking the majority share of public support. Iran, is great example of a government that rules by fear, intimidation and the real threat of death if you go against the state narratives. The people who live there, how are they dealt with when found to have the extremist views of democracy and freedoms, what are their options? Good point though would I be correct in thinking that theocracy better aligns with right wing political ideologies than left wing? Certainly Communism sought to disband the church or reduce the influence whereas fascism utilised the church to further their aims (in Europe at least)." You would be right. If we look at the middle east we'd probably all agree that by the standard we now set, they're 'far far right'. Strange that the left in the West generally support them. If they were in the West, plenty would want them banned according to posta here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?Why would anyone want to ban them ? The amount of votes that they wouls attract are so small that they are hardly ever worth thinking about. You didn’t actually read the question Pat! This is a philosophical debate... “what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?” Are you able to enter this discussion? I'm rather surprised everyone is looking at this from a western view point of extreme left and right factions taking the majority share of public support. Iran, is great example of a government that rules by fear, intimidation and the real threat of death if you go against the state narratives. The people who live there, how are they dealt with when found to have the extremist views of democracy and freedoms, what are their options? Good point though would I be correct in thinking that theocracy better aligns with right wing political ideologies than left wing? Certainly Communism sought to disband the church or reduce the influence whereas fascism utilised the church to further their aims (in Europe at least). You would be right. If we look at the middle east we'd probably all agree that by the standard we now set, they're 'far far right'. Strange that the left in the West generally support them. If they were in the West, plenty would want them banned according to posta here." I’m not sure it’s fair to say that the left ‘generally support them’ support who, exactly? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?Why would anyone want to ban them ? The amount of votes that they wouls attract are so small that they are hardly ever worth thinking about. You didn’t actually read the question Pat! This is a philosophical debate... “what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?” Are you able to enter this discussion? I'm rather surprised everyone is looking at this from a western view point of extreme left and right factions taking the majority share of public support. Iran, is great example of a government that rules by fear, intimidation and the real threat of death if you go against the state narratives. The people who live there, how are they dealt with when found to have the extremist views of democracy and freedoms, what are their options? Good point though would I be correct in thinking that theocracy better aligns with right wing political ideologies than left wing? Certainly Communism sought to disband the church or reduce the influence whereas fascism utilised the church to further their aims (in Europe at least). You would be right. If we look at the middle east we'd probably all agree that by the standard we now set, they're 'far far right'. Strange that the left in the West generally support them. If they were in the West, plenty would want them banned according to posta here. I’m not sure it’s fair to say that the left ‘generally support them’ support who, exactly? " You just have to look around and see the support for Hamas, The Houthis, Assad etc al. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?Why would anyone want to ban them ? The amount of votes that they wouls attract are so small that they are hardly ever worth thinking about. You didn’t actually read the question Pat! This is a philosophical debate... “what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?” Are you able to enter this discussion? I'm rather surprised everyone is looking at this from a western view point of extreme left and right factions taking the majority share of public support. Iran, is great example of a government that rules by fear, intimidation and the real threat of death if you go against the state narratives. The people who live there, how are they dealt with when found to have the extremist views of democracy and freedoms, what are their options? Good point though would I be correct in thinking that theocracy better aligns with right wing political ideologies than left wing? Certainly Communism sought to disband the church or reduce the influence whereas fascism utilised the church to further their aims (in Europe at least). You would be right. If we look at the middle east we'd probably all agree that by the standard we now set, they're 'far far right'. Strange that the left in the West generally support them. If they were in the West, plenty would want them banned according to posta here." Who is this homogenous “the left”? I don’t think that exists as a thing? Also, you think people who are left leaning support Iran? Really? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?Why would anyone want to ban them ? The amount of votes that they wouls attract are so small that they are hardly ever worth thinking about. You didn’t actually read the question Pat! This is a philosophical debate... “what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?” Are you able to enter this discussion? I'm rather surprised everyone is looking at this from a western view point of extreme left and right factions taking the majority share of public support. Iran, is great example of a government that rules by fear, intimidation and the real threat of death if you go against the state narratives. The people who live there, how are they dealt with when found to have the extremist views of democracy and freedoms, what are their options? Good point though would I be correct in thinking that theocracy better aligns with right wing political ideologies than left wing? Certainly Communism sought to disband the church or reduce the influence whereas fascism utilised the church to further their aims (in Europe at least). You would be right. If we look at the middle east we'd probably all agree that by the standard we now set, they're 'far far right'. Strange that the left in the West generally support them. If they were in the West, plenty would want them banned according to posta here. I’m not sure it’s fair to say that the left ‘generally support them’ support who, exactly? You just have to look around and see the support for Hamas, The Houthis, Assad etc al. " I have not seen much support for any of those. Certainly the Hamas point has conflated Palestinians with Hamas. I have seen people condemn Israel but that is not the same as supporting Hamas. I have seen people try to add context for why Hamas have acted the way they have but again I do not see that as support. There may be a small handful of outliers but generally I think people have been appalled by the acts of terrorism AND the response by Israel. You can be critical of both without supporting either. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?Why would anyone want to ban them ? The amount of votes that they wouls attract are so small that they are hardly ever worth thinking about. You didn’t actually read the question Pat! This is a philosophical debate... “what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?” Are you able to enter this discussion? I'm rather surprised everyone is looking at this from a western view point of extreme left and right factions taking the majority share of public support. Iran, is great example of a government that rules by fear, intimidation and the real threat of death if you go against the state narratives. The people who live there, how are they dealt with when found to have the extremist views of democracy and freedoms, what are their options? Good point though would I be correct in thinking that theocracy better aligns with right wing political ideologies than left wing? Certainly Communism sought to disband the church or reduce the influence whereas fascism utilised the church to further their aims (in Europe at least). You would be right. If we look at the middle east we'd probably all agree that by the standard we now set, they're 'far far right'. Strange that the left in the West generally support them. If they were in the West, plenty would want them banned according to posta here. Who is this homogenous “the left”? I don’t think that exists as a thing? Also, you think people who are left leaning support Iran? Really?" I've just given examples. You don't remember the outpouring for Bin Laden last month? It's easy to pick one country and say they they don't get support. Look at the region as a whole. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?Why would anyone want to ban them ? The amount of votes that they wouls attract are so small that they are hardly ever worth thinking about. You didn’t actually read the question Pat! This is a philosophical debate... “what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?” Are you able to enter this discussion? I'm rather surprised everyone is looking at this from a western view point of extreme left and right factions taking the majority share of public support. Iran, is great example of a government that rules by fear, intimidation and the real threat of death if you go against the state narratives. The people who live there, how are they dealt with when found to have the extremist views of democracy and freedoms, what are their options? Good point though would I be correct in thinking that theocracy better aligns with right wing political ideologies than left wing? Certainly Communism sought to disband the church or reduce the influence whereas fascism utilised the church to further their aims (in Europe at least). You would be right. If we look at the middle east we'd probably all agree that by the standard we now set, they're 'far far right'. Strange that the left in the West generally support them. If they were in the West, plenty would want them banned according to posta here. I’m not sure it’s fair to say that the left ‘generally support them’ support who, exactly? You just have to look around and see the support for Hamas, The Houthis, Assad etc al. I have not seen much support for any of those. Certainly the Hamas point has conflated Palestinians with Hamas. I have seen people condemn Israel but that is not the same as supporting Hamas. I have seen people try to add context for why Hamas have acted the way they have but again I do not see that as support. There may be a small handful of outliers but generally I think people have been appalled by the acts of terrorism AND the response by Israel. You can be critical of both without supporting either. " You've had your head buried if you haven't seen support for any of those mentioned. I like how you zoomed on 'Palestinians' though, that wasn't foreseen | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?Why would anyone want to ban them ? The amount of votes that they wouls attract are so small that they are hardly ever worth thinking about. You didn’t actually read the question Pat! This is a philosophical debate... “what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?” Are you able to enter this discussion? I'm rather surprised everyone is looking at this from a western view point of extreme left and right factions taking the majority share of public support. Iran, is great example of a government that rules by fear, intimidation and the real threat of death if you go against the state narratives. The people who live there, how are they dealt with when found to have the extremist views of democracy and freedoms, what are their options? Good point though would I be correct in thinking that theocracy better aligns with right wing political ideologies than left wing? Certainly Communism sought to disband the church or reduce the influence whereas fascism utilised the church to further their aims (in Europe at least). You would be right. If we look at the middle east we'd probably all agree that by the standard we now set, they're 'far far right'. Strange that the left in the West generally support them. If they were in the West, plenty would want them banned according to posta here. Who is this homogenous “the left”? I don’t think that exists as a thing? Also, you think people who are left leaning support Iran? Really? I've just given examples. You don't remember the outpouring for Bin Laden last month? It's easy to pick one country and say they they don't get support. Look at the region as a whole. " No I don’t recall anything at all on Bin Laden? Which thread was that as I must have missed it. Would be interesting to read. You said the “left” support Assad? Do they? Where? How? Wasn’t Assad’d Govt forces fighting against ISIS? Complicated! “Left” support of Houthis, Hamas, ergo Iran? Really? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?Why would anyone want to ban them ? The amount of votes that they wouls attract are so small that they are hardly ever worth thinking about. You didn’t actually read the question Pat! This is a philosophical debate... “what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?” Are you able to enter this discussion? I'm rather surprised everyone is looking at this from a western view point of extreme left and right factions taking the majority share of public support. Iran, is great example of a government that rules by fear, intimidation and the real threat of death if you go against the state narratives. The people who live there, how are they dealt with when found to have the extremist views of democracy and freedoms, what are their options? Good point though would I be correct in thinking that theocracy better aligns with right wing political ideologies than left wing? Certainly Communism sought to disband the church or reduce the influence whereas fascism utilised the church to further their aims (in Europe at least). You would be right. If we look at the middle east we'd probably all agree that by the standard we now set, they're 'far far right'. Strange that the left in the West generally support them. If they were in the West, plenty would want them banned according to posta here. Who is this homogenous “the left”? I don’t think that exists as a thing? Also, you think people who are left leaning support Iran? Really? I've just given examples. You don't remember the outpouring for Bin Laden last month? It's easy to pick one country and say they they don't get support. Look at the region as a whole. No I don’t recall anything at all on Bin Laden? Which thread was that as I must have missed it. Would be interesting to read. You said the “left” support Assad? Do they? Where? How? Wasn’t Assad’d Govt forces fighting against ISIS? Complicated! “Left” support of Houthis, Hamas, ergo Iran? Really?" There's a wider world than these fora out there. I'm surprised you don't remember the Bin Laden situation, it was everywhere. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?Why would anyone want to ban them ? The amount of votes that they wouls attract are so small that they are hardly ever worth thinking about. You didn’t actually read the question Pat! This is a philosophical debate... “what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?” Are you able to enter this discussion? I'm rather surprised everyone is looking at this from a western view point of extreme left and right factions taking the majority share of public support. Iran, is great example of a government that rules by fear, intimidation and the real threat of death if you go against the state narratives. The people who live there, how are they dealt with when found to have the extremist views of democracy and freedoms, what are their options? Good point though would I be correct in thinking that theocracy better aligns with right wing political ideologies than left wing? Certainly Communism sought to disband the church or reduce the influence whereas fascism utilised the church to further their aims (in Europe at least). You would be right. If we look at the middle east we'd probably all agree that by the standard we now set, they're 'far far right'. Strange that the left in the West generally support them. If they were in the West, plenty would want them banned according to posta here. I’m not sure it’s fair to say that the left ‘generally support them’ support who, exactly? You just have to look around and see the support for Hamas, The Houthis, Assad etc al. I have not seen much support for any of those. Certainly the Hamas point has conflated Palestinians with Hamas. I have seen people condemn Israel but that is not the same as supporting Hamas. I have seen people try to add context for why Hamas have acted the way they have but again I do not see that as support. There may be a small handful of outliers but generally I think people have been appalled by the acts of terrorism AND the response by Israel. You can be critical of both without supporting either. You've had your head buried if you haven't seen support for any of those mentioned. I like how you zoomed on 'Palestinians' though, that wasn't foreseen "Simple truth though right? There may be a few posters who have been vocally pro-Palestinian and vocally anti-Israel but I do not recall seeing anyone openly pro-Hamas? I don’t read every thread though! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?Why would anyone want to ban them ? The amount of votes that they wouls attract are so small that they are hardly ever worth thinking about. You didn’t actually read the question Pat! This is a philosophical debate... “what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?” Are you able to enter this discussion? I'm rather surprised everyone is looking at this from a western view point of extreme left and right factions taking the majority share of public support. Iran, is great example of a government that rules by fear, intimidation and the real threat of death if you go against the state narratives. The people who live there, how are they dealt with when found to have the extremist views of democracy and freedoms, what are their options? Good point though would I be correct in thinking that theocracy better aligns with right wing political ideologies than left wing? Certainly Communism sought to disband the church or reduce the influence whereas fascism utilised the church to further their aims (in Europe at least). You would be right. If we look at the middle east we'd probably all agree that by the standard we now set, they're 'far far right'. Strange that the left in the West generally support them. If they were in the West, plenty would want them banned according to posta here. Who is this homogenous “the left”? I don’t think that exists as a thing? Also, you think people who are left leaning support Iran? Really? I've just given examples. You don't remember the outpouring for Bin Laden last month? It's easy to pick one country and say they they don't get support. Look at the region as a whole. No I don’t recall anything at all on Bin Laden? Which thread was that as I must have missed it. Would be interesting to read. You said the “left” support Assad? Do they? Where? How? Wasn’t Assad’d Govt forces fighting against ISIS? Complicated! “Left” support of Houthis, Hamas, ergo Iran? Really? There's a wider world than these fora out there. I'm surprised you don't remember the Bin Laden situation, it was everywhere. " Honestly don’t! I am getting old though | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let's go back to the OP. Should pretty much the whole of the middle east politics be banned because of extremism?" Unless there was a World Govt/New World Order type thing then we cannot interfere in other countries. The OP is actually focused on the UK. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?Why would anyone want to ban them ? The amount of votes that they wouls attract are so small that they are hardly ever worth thinking about. You didn’t actually read the question Pat! This is a philosophical debate... “what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?” Are you able to enter this discussion? I'm rather surprised everyone is looking at this from a western view point of extreme left and right factions taking the majority share of public support. Iran, is great example of a government that rules by fear, intimidation and the real threat of death if you go against the state narratives. The people who live there, how are they dealt with when found to have the extremist views of democracy and freedoms, what are their options? Good point though would I be correct in thinking that theocracy better aligns with right wing political ideologies than left wing? Certainly Communism sought to disband the church or reduce the influence whereas fascism utilised the church to further their aims (in Europe at least). You would be right. If we look at the middle east we'd probably all agree that by the standard we now set, they're 'far far right'. Strange that the left in the West generally support them. If they were in the West, plenty would want them banned according to posta here. I’m not sure it’s fair to say that the left ‘generally support them’ support who, exactly? You just have to look around and see the support for Hamas, The Houthis, Assad etc al. " Who of the generic left openly supports Hamas? The houthis? Come on, man. Supporting Palestinian people doesn’t equal supporting Hamas, you know that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let's go back to the OP. Should pretty much the whole of the middle east politics be banned because of extremism? Unless there was a World Govt/New World Order type thing then we cannot interfere in other countries. The OP is actually focused on the UK. " You brought Europe into it so I expanded | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?Why would anyone want to ban them ? The amount of votes that they wouls attract are so small that they are hardly ever worth thinking about. You didn’t actually read the question Pat! This is a philosophical debate... “what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?” Are you able to enter this discussion? I'm rather surprised everyone is looking at this from a western view point of extreme left and right factions taking the majority share of public support. Iran, is great example of a government that rules by fear, intimidation and the real threat of death if you go against the state narratives. The people who live there, how are they dealt with when found to have the extremist views of democracy and freedoms, what are their options? Good point though would I be correct in thinking that theocracy better aligns with right wing political ideologies than left wing? Certainly Communism sought to disband the church or reduce the influence whereas fascism utilised the church to further their aims (in Europe at least). You would be right. If we look at the middle east we'd probably all agree that by the standard we now set, they're 'far far right'. Strange that the left in the West generally support them. If they were in the West, plenty would want them banned according to posta here. I’m not sure it’s fair to say that the left ‘generally support them’ support who, exactly? You just have to look around and see the support for Hamas, The Houthis, Assad etc al. Who of the generic left openly supports Hamas? The houthis? Come on, man. Supporting Palestinian people doesn’t equal supporting Hamas, you know that. " You want individual names? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You brought Europe into it so I expanded" Fair. But then the societal sensibilities of European nations/people (certainly Western Europe) are more closely aligned with the UK so comparisons are easier to draw. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?Why would anyone want to ban them ? The amount of votes that they wouls attract are so small that they are hardly ever worth thinking about. You didn’t actually read the question Pat! This is a philosophical debate... “what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?” Are you able to enter this discussion? I'm rather surprised everyone is looking at this from a western view point of extreme left and right factions taking the majority share of public support. Iran, is great example of a government that rules by fear, intimidation and the real threat of death if you go against the state narratives. The people who live there, how are they dealt with when found to have the extremist views of democracy and freedoms, what are their options? Good point though would I be correct in thinking that theocracy better aligns with right wing political ideologies than left wing? Certainly Communism sought to disband the church or reduce the influence whereas fascism utilised the church to further their aims (in Europe at least). You would be right. If we look at the middle east we'd probably all agree that by the standard we now set, they're 'far far right'. Strange that the left in the West generally support them. If they were in the West, plenty would want them banned according to posta here. I’m not sure it’s fair to say that the left ‘generally support them’ support who, exactly? You just have to look around and see the support for Hamas, The Houthis, Assad etc al. Who of the generic left openly supports Hamas? The houthis? Come on, man. Supporting Palestinian people doesn’t equal supporting Hamas, you know that. You want individual names? "I’d like some evidence of large scale support for Hamas from ‘the left’, yeah  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?Why would anyone want to ban them ? The amount of votes that they wouls attract are so small that they are hardly ever worth thinking about. You didn’t actually read the question Pat! This is a philosophical debate... “what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?” Are you able to enter this discussion? I'm rather surprised everyone is looking at this from a western view point of extreme left and right factions taking the majority share of public support. Iran, is great example of a government that rules by fear, intimidation and the real threat of death if you go against the state narratives. The people who live there, how are they dealt with when found to have the extremist views of democracy and freedoms, what are their options? Good point though would I be correct in thinking that theocracy better aligns with right wing political ideologies than left wing? Certainly Communism sought to disband the church or reduce the influence whereas fascism utilised the church to further their aims (in Europe at least). You would be right. If we look at the middle east we'd probably all agree that by the standard we now set, they're 'far far right'. Strange that the left in the West generally support them. If they were in the West, plenty would want them banned according to posta here. I’m not sure it’s fair to say that the left ‘generally support them’ support who, exactly? " There is a tendency for the progressive liberals to rally in the streets and on social media, in the name of all things anti west. Going to F&F’s point, a letter from Bin laden, virtue signalling on how they’ve read the Quran and they are enlightened and overjoyed, LGBT groups supporting countries and populations that would see them dead, there a lot of examples that you are either closing your eye to or are simply not aware. Palestinian support marches in London, protestors chanting Yemen, Yemen, make us proud, turn another ship around… not a direct link to the left, but these people are supporting extremism, what are you thinking? Let them get on with it, or condemn them as you said you would if extremists were in the UK | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?Why would anyone want to ban them ? The amount of votes that they wouls attract are so small that they are hardly ever worth thinking about. You didn’t actually read the question Pat! This is a philosophical debate... “what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?” Are you able to enter this discussion? I'm rather surprised everyone is looking at this from a western view point of extreme left and right factions taking the majority share of public support. Iran, is great example of a government that rules by fear, intimidation and the real threat of death if you go against the state narratives. The people who live there, how are they dealt with when found to have the extremist views of democracy and freedoms, what are their options? Good point though would I be correct in thinking that theocracy better aligns with right wing political ideologies than left wing? Certainly Communism sought to disband the church or reduce the influence whereas fascism utilised the church to further their aims (in Europe at least). You would be right. If we look at the middle east we'd probably all agree that by the standard we now set, they're 'far far right'. Strange that the left in the West generally support them. If they were in the West, plenty would want them banned according to posta here. I’m not sure it’s fair to say that the left ‘generally support them’ support who, exactly? You just have to look around and see the support for Hamas, The Houthis, Assad etc al. Who of the generic left openly supports Hamas? The houthis? Come on, man. Supporting Palestinian people doesn’t equal supporting Hamas, you know that. You want individual names?
I’d like some evidence of large scale support for Hamas from ‘the left’, yeah "It's out there, plenty of it go find it
I doubt whatever I produce, you'll bother to actually read.
Do you remember the outpouring for Bin Laden last month? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Palestinian support marches in London, protestors chanting Yemen, Yemen, make us proud, turn another ship around… not a direct link to the left, but these people are supporting extremism, what are you thinking? Let them get on with it, or condemn them as you said you would if extremists were in the UK" Once again, supporting the innocent people of Palestine is not the same as supporting extremism. Does supporting Irish independence and unification also equate to supporting the IRA? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Palestinian support marches in London, protestors chanting Yemen, Yemen, make us proud, turn another ship around… not a direct link to the left, but these people are supporting extremism, what are you thinking? Let them get on with it, or condemn them as you said you would if extremists were in the UK Once again, supporting the innocent people of Palestine is not the same as supporting extremism. Does supporting Irish independence and unification also equate to supporting the IRA? " You are being a hypocrite here, you will condemn extremism in a UK political party, but we don’t have any… where it does exist, you get behind it, well done | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Palestinian support marches in London, protestors chanting Yemen, Yemen, make us proud, turn another ship around… not a direct link to the left, but these people are supporting extremism, what are you thinking? Let them get on with it, or condemn them as you said you would if extremists were in the UK Once again, supporting the innocent people of Palestine is not the same as supporting extremism. Does supporting Irish independence and unification also equate to supporting the IRA? You are being a hypocrite here, you will condemn extremism in a UK political party, but we don’t have any… where it does exist, you get behind it, well done "No, I’ve not failed to condemn any extremism at all. I’ve pointed out that ‘the left’ don’t support Hamas, The Houthi’s et al, as claimed above. I loathe extremism, I loath regimes that oppress citizens rights etc. I feel exactly the same about citizens rights regardless of where in the world it is - but this thread started off about the UK and what *we* do in this country. Do you accept the point made repeatedly that supporting the innocent people of Palestine is not the same as supporting Hamas? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Palestinian support marches in London, protestors chanting Yemen, Yemen, make us proud, turn another ship around… not a direct link to the left, but these people are supporting extremism, what are you thinking? Let them get on with it, or condemn them as you said you would if extremists were in the UK Once again, supporting the innocent people of Palestine is not the same as supporting extremism. Does supporting Irish independence and unification also equate to supporting the IRA? You are being a hypocrite here, you will condemn extremism in a UK political party, but we don’t have any… where it does exist, you get behind it, well done "I’m gonna ask you to point out exactly where I ‘got behind’ extremism. Because right now, like so often, it looks like you’re inventing shit again. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Palestinian support marches in London, protestors chanting Yemen, Yemen, make us proud, turn another ship around… not a direct link to the left, but these people are supporting extremism, what are you thinking? Let them get on with it, or condemn them as you said you would if extremists were in the UK Once again, supporting the innocent people of Palestine is not the same as supporting extremism. Does supporting Irish independence and unification also equate to supporting the IRA? " 'Standing behind innocent people' is bollocks. If people really support the oppressed they'd be asking for those regimes who are oppressing them to be 'taken care of', otherwise its just a lazy argument. Me for example, I'd love to see those regimes wiped off the face of the earth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Palestinian support marches in London, protestors chanting Yemen, Yemen, make us proud, turn another ship around… not a direct link to the left, but these people are supporting extremism, what are you thinking? Let them get on with it, or condemn them as you said you would if extremists were in the UK Once again, supporting the innocent people of Palestine is not the same as supporting extremism. Does supporting Irish independence and unification also equate to supporting the IRA? 'Standing behind innocent people' is bollocks. If people really support the oppressed they'd be asking for those regimes who are oppressing them to be 'taken care of', otherwise its just a lazy argument. Me for example, I'd love to see those regimes wiped off the face of the earth. " As they say, the silence is deafening. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Palestinian support marches in London, protestors chanting Yemen, Yemen, make us proud, turn another ship around… not a direct link to the left, but these people are supporting extremism, what are you thinking? Let them get on with it, or condemn them as you said you would if extremists were in the UK Once again, supporting the innocent people of Palestine is not the same as supporting extremism. Does supporting Irish independence and unification also equate to supporting the IRA? You are being a hypocrite here, you will condemn extremism in a UK political party, but we don’t have any… where it does exist, you get behind it, well done
I’m gonna ask you to point out exactly where I ‘got behind’ extremism.
Because right now, like so often, it looks like you’re inventing shit again."You do understand that Houthis are firing missiles at civilian shipping, and boarding ships with armed men are being cheered on by the same people marching in support of Palestine? Calling for them to take out more ships… you must also recognise that numbers of people on those marches were displaying terrorist banners and headscarves? I have said there is no direct link to the left, I did however give you examples of the left behaviour, but you ignored that. Where do you draw your line of acceptable action and extremism? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Me for example, I'd love to see those regimes wiped off the face of the earth. " Me too. Preferably without unsettling the region and tumbling it further into disarray. What’s the solution? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Palestinian support marches in London, protestors chanting Yemen, Yemen, make us proud, turn another ship around… not a direct link to the left, but these people are supporting extremism, what are you thinking? Let them get on with it, or condemn them as you said you would if extremists were in the UK Once again, supporting the innocent people of Palestine is not the same as supporting extremism. Does supporting Irish independence and unification also equate to supporting the IRA? You are being a hypocrite here, you will condemn extremism in a UK political party, but we don’t have any… where it does exist, you get behind it, well done
I’m gonna ask you to point out exactly where I ‘got behind’ extremism.
Because right now, like so often, it looks like you’re inventing shit again.
You do understand that Houthis are firing missiles at civilian shipping, and boarding ships with armed men are being cheered on by the same people marching in support of Palestine? Calling for them to take out more ships… you must also recognise that numbers of people on those marches were displaying terrorist banners and headscarves? I have said there is no direct link to the left, I did however give you examples of the left behaviour, but you ignored that.
Where do you draw your line of acceptable action and extremism? "So I’ll ask once again, since you clearly failed to understand the question: exactly where did I ‘get behind’ extremism? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Palestinian support marches in London, protestors chanting Yemen, Yemen, make us proud, turn another ship around… not a direct link to the left, but these people are supporting extremism, what are you thinking? Let them get on with it, or condemn them as you said you would if extremists were in the UK Once again, supporting the innocent people of Palestine is not the same as supporting extremism. Does supporting Irish independence and unification also equate to supporting the IRA? You are being a hypocrite here, you will condemn extremism in a UK political party, but we don’t have any… where it does exist, you get behind it, well done
I’m gonna ask you to point out exactly where I ‘got behind’ extremism.
Because right now, like so often, it looks like you’re inventing shit again.
You do understand that Houthis are firing missiles at civilian shipping, and boarding ships with armed men are being cheered on by the same people marching in support of Palestine? Calling for them to take out more ships… you must also recognise that numbers of people on those marches were displaying terrorist banners and headscarves? I have said there is no direct link to the left, I did however give you examples of the left behaviour, but you ignored that.
Where do you draw your line of acceptable action and extremism?
So I’ll ask once again, since you clearly failed to understand the question:
exactly where did I ‘get behind’ extremism?
"Once again, supporting the innocent people of Palestine is not the same as supporting extremism. That is your response to the support for Houthis, I would consider this support of extremism through the actions of the Houthis. Are you saying you don’t support the chanting in support of the Houthis? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Me for example, I'd love to see those regimes wiped off the face of the earth. Me too. Preferably without unsettling the region and tumbling it further into disarray. What’s the solution? " Why are you asking me? Don't you have a solution? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Palestinian support marches in London, protestors chanting Yemen, Yemen, make us proud, turn another ship around… not a direct link to the left, but these people are supporting extremism, what are you thinking? Let them get on with it, or condemn them as you said you would if extremists were in the UK Once again, supporting the innocent people of Palestine is not the same as supporting extremism. Does supporting Irish independence and unification also equate to supporting the IRA? You are being a hypocrite here, you will condemn extremism in a UK political party, but we don’t have any… where it does exist, you get behind it, well done
I’m gonna ask you to point out exactly where I ‘got behind’ extremism.
Because right now, like so often, it looks like you’re inventing shit again.
You do understand that Houthis are firing missiles at civilian shipping, and boarding ships with armed men are being cheered on by the same people marching in support of Palestine? Calling for them to take out more ships… you must also recognise that numbers of people on those marches were displaying terrorist banners and headscarves? I have said there is no direct link to the left, I did however give you examples of the left behaviour, but you ignored that.
Where do you draw your line of acceptable action and extremism?
So I’ll ask once again, since you clearly failed to understand the question:
exactly where did I ‘get behind’ extremism?
Once again, supporting the innocent people of Palestine is not the same as supporting extremism.
That is your response to the support for Houthis, I would consider this support of extremism through the actions of the Houthis.
Are you saying you don’t support the chanting in support of the Houthis? "Ah. I see. So you’ve invented something based upon it not being explicitly ruled out in a paragraph on a forum. I don’t support any extremist group or action of terror nor those who holler for increased extremist acts, regardless of their race, colour or political leaning. I may support/share the goals of a political group, be it Irish nationalism or Climate change, and end to oppression - but that’s not the same as supporting the perpetrators of evil acts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Palestinian support marches in London, protestors chanting Yemen, Yemen, make us proud, turn another ship around… not a direct link to the left, but these people are supporting extremism, what are you thinking? Let them get on with it, or condemn them as you said you would if extremists were in the UK Once again, supporting the innocent people of Palestine is not the same as supporting extremism. Does supporting Irish independence and unification also equate to supporting the IRA? You are being a hypocrite here, you will condemn extremism in a UK political party, but we don’t have any… where it does exist, you get behind it, well done
I’m gonna ask you to point out exactly where I ‘got behind’ extremism.
Because right now, like so often, it looks like you’re inventing shit again.
You do understand that Houthis are firing missiles at civilian shipping, and boarding ships with armed men are being cheered on by the same people marching in support of Palestine? Calling for them to take out more ships… you must also recognise that numbers of people on those marches were displaying terrorist banners and headscarves? I have said there is no direct link to the left, I did however give you examples of the left behaviour, but you ignored that.
Where do you draw your line of acceptable action and extremism?
So I’ll ask once again, since you clearly failed to understand the question:
exactly where did I ‘get behind’ extremism?
Once again, supporting the innocent people of Palestine is not the same as supporting extremism.
That is your response to the support for Houthis, I would consider this support of extremism through the actions of the Houthis.
Are you saying you don’t support the chanting in support of the Houthis?
Ah. I see. So you’ve invented something based upon it not being explicitly ruled out in a paragraph on a forum.
I don’t support any extremist group or action of terror nor those who holler for increased extremist acts, regardless of their race, colour or political leaning.
I may support/share the goals of a political group, be it Irish nationalism or Climate change, and end to oppression - but that’s not the same as supporting the perpetrators of evil acts.
"Good, so you will not approve of chanting in support of the Houthis attacks on civilian ships | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Palestinian support marches in London, protestors chanting Yemen, Yemen, make us proud, turn another ship around… not a direct link to the left, but these people are supporting extremism, what are you thinking? Let them get on with it, or condemn them as you said you would if extremists were in the UK Once again, supporting the innocent people of Palestine is not the same as supporting extremism. Does supporting Irish independence and unification also equate to supporting the IRA? You are being a hypocrite here, you will condemn extremism in a UK political party, but we don’t have any… where it does exist, you get behind it, well done
I’m gonna ask you to point out exactly where I ‘got behind’ extremism.
Because right now, like so often, it looks like you’re inventing shit again.
You do understand that Houthis are firing missiles at civilian shipping, and boarding ships with armed men are being cheered on by the same people marching in support of Palestine? Calling for them to take out more ships… you must also recognise that numbers of people on those marches were displaying terrorist banners and headscarves? I have said there is no direct link to the left, I did however give you examples of the left behaviour, but you ignored that.
Where do you draw your line of acceptable action and extremism?
So I’ll ask once again, since you clearly failed to understand the question:
exactly where did I ‘get behind’ extremism?
Once again, supporting the innocent people of Palestine is not the same as supporting extremism.
That is your response to the support for Houthis, I would consider this support of extremism through the actions of the Houthis.
Are you saying you don’t support the chanting in support of the Houthis?
Ah. I see. So you’ve invented something based upon it not being explicitly ruled out in a paragraph on a forum.
I don’t support any extremist group or action of terror nor those who holler for increased extremist acts, regardless of their race, colour or political leaning.
I may support/share the goals of a political group, be it Irish nationalism or Climate change, and end to oppression - but that’s not the same as supporting the perpetrators of evil acts.
Good, so you will not approve of chanting in support of the Houthis attacks on civilian ships "Sorry am I missing something here? Is there another thread? Has bassplayer said he supports the Houthis or agrees with the people chanting their support? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Palestinian support marches in London, protestors chanting Yemen, Yemen, make us proud, turn another ship around… not a direct link to the left, but these people are supporting extremism, what are you thinking? Let them get on with it, or condemn them as you said you would if extremists were in the UK Once again, supporting the innocent people of Palestine is not the same as supporting extremism. Does supporting Irish independence and unification also equate to supporting the IRA? You are being a hypocrite here, you will condemn extremism in a UK political party, but we don’t have any… where it does exist, you get behind it, well done
I’m gonna ask you to point out exactly where I ‘got behind’ extremism.
Because right now, like so often, it looks like you’re inventing shit again.
You do understand that Houthis are firing missiles at civilian shipping, and boarding ships with armed men are being cheered on by the same people marching in support of Palestine? Calling for them to take out more ships… you must also recognise that numbers of people on those marches were displaying terrorist banners and headscarves? I have said there is no direct link to the left, I did however give you examples of the left behaviour, but you ignored that.
Where do you draw your line of acceptable action and extremism?
So I’ll ask once again, since you clearly failed to understand the question:
exactly where did I ‘get behind’ extremism?
Once again, supporting the innocent people of Palestine is not the same as supporting extremism.
That is your response to the support for Houthis, I would consider this support of extremism through the actions of the Houthis.
Are you saying you don’t support the chanting in support of the Houthis?
Ah. I see. So you’ve invented something based upon it not being explicitly ruled out in a paragraph on a forum.
I don’t support any extremist group or action of terror nor those who holler for increased extremist acts, regardless of their race, colour or political leaning.
I may support/share the goals of a political group, be it Irish nationalism or Climate change, and end to oppression - but that’s not the same as supporting the perpetrators of evil acts.
Good, so you will not approve of chanting in support of the Houthis attacks on civilian ships
Sorry am I missing something here? Is there another thread? Has bassplayer said he supports the Houthis or agrees with the people chanting their support?"No but I didn’t explicitly state that I don’t support them. Which is apparently the same as pledging undying support. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Every fucking thread! Every one!" That’s a rather large brush you seem to be sweeping up with…, The below is what I wanted confirmation on, as it is not clear on intent. Not fucking saying something, is always the get of jail card, I hear time and time again, “I didn’t say I supported them”, but often they never say they don’t outright either!! “ Palestinian support marches in London, protestors chanting Yemen, Yemen, make us proud, turn another ship around… not a direct link to the left, but these people are supporting extremism, what are you thinking? Let them get on with it, or condemn them as you said you would if extremists were in the UK Once again, supporting the innocent people of Palestine is not the same as supporting extremism. Does supporting Irish independence and unification also equate to supporting the IRA?” That answer is pure BS, we are talking about the acts of the Houthis firing missiles on civilian ships, and people chanting support for that, condemn it or support it. Clear | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Every fucking thread! Every one! That’s a rather large brush you seem to be sweeping up with…, The below is what I wanted confirmation on, as it is not clear on intent. Not fucking saying something, is always the get of jail card, I hear time and time again, “I didn’t say I supported them”, but often they never say they don’t outright either!! “ Palestinian support marches in London, protestors chanting Yemen, Yemen, make us proud, turn another ship around… not a direct link to the left, but these people are supporting extremism, what are you thinking? Let them get on with it, or condemn them as you said you would if extremists were in the UK Once again, supporting the innocent people of Palestine is not the same as supporting extremism. Does supporting Irish independence and unification also equate to supporting the IRA?” That answer is pure BS, we are talking about the acts of the Houthis firing missiles on civilian ships, and people chanting support for that, condemn it or support it. Clear" But it is every fucking thread! Ok maybe not EVERY fucking thread. But a lot of fucking threads. The same people going back and fourth appearing to be goading or trying to gotcha. Putting words in each other’s mouths. Not really reading what the other says or believing their explanation when what they wrote may not be clear enough. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Every fucking thread! Every one! That’s a rather large brush you seem to be sweeping up with…, The below is what I wanted confirmation on, as it is not clear on intent. Not fucking saying something, is always the get of jail card, I hear time and time again, “I didn’t say I supported them”, but often they never say they don’t outright either!! “ Palestinian support marches in London, protestors chanting Yemen, Yemen, make us proud, turn another ship around… not a direct link to the left, but these people are supporting extremism, what are you thinking? Let them get on with it, or condemn them as you said you would if extremists were in the UK Once again, supporting the innocent people of Palestine is not the same as supporting extremism. Does supporting Irish independence and unification also equate to supporting the IRA?” That answer is pure BS, we are talking about the acts of the Houthis firing missiles on civilian ships, and people chanting support for that, condemn it or support it. Clear But it is every fucking thread! Ok maybe not EVERY fucking thread. But a lot of fucking threads. The same people going back and fourth appearing to be goading or trying to gotcha. Putting words in each other’s mouths. Not really reading what the other says or believing their explanation when what they wrote may not be clear enough. " It's difficult because even when you read and respond to EXACT words, you get told 'you made that up'. There's at least 2 prominent posters who debate using that method. What's the solution? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Every fucking thread! Every one! That’s a rather large brush you seem to be sweeping up with…, The below is what I wanted confirmation on, as it is not clear on intent. Not fucking saying something, is always the get of jail card, I hear time and time again, “I didn’t say I supported them”, but often they never say they don’t outright either!! “ Palestinian support marches in London, protestors chanting Yemen, Yemen, make us proud, turn another ship around… not a direct link to the left, but these people are supporting extremism, what are you thinking? Let them get on with it, or condemn them as you said you would if extremists were in the UK Once again, supporting the innocent people of Palestine is not the same as supporting extremism. Does supporting Irish independence and unification also equate to supporting the IRA?” That answer is pure BS, we are talking about the acts of the Houthis firing missiles on civilian ships, and people chanting support for that, condemn it or support it. Clear But it is every fucking thread! Ok maybe not EVERY fucking thread. But a lot of fucking threads. The same people going back and fourth appearing to be goading or trying to gotcha. Putting words in each other’s mouths. Not really reading what the other says or believing their explanation when what they wrote may not be clear enough. It's difficult because even when you read and respond to EXACT words, you get told 'you made that up'. There's at least 2 prominent posters who debate using that method. What's the solution?" No idea I just fancied a moan (not the Michelle type ) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Every fucking thread! Every one! That’s a rather large brush you seem to be sweeping up with…, The below is what I wanted confirmation on, as it is not clear on intent. Not fucking saying something, is always the get of jail card, I hear time and time again, “I didn’t say I supported them”, but often they never say they don’t outright either!! “ Palestinian support marches in London, protestors chanting Yemen, Yemen, make us proud, turn another ship around… not a direct link to the left, but these people are supporting extremism, what are you thinking? Let them get on with it, or condemn them as you said you would if extremists were in the UK Once again, supporting the innocent people of Palestine is not the same as supporting extremism. Does supporting Irish independence and unification also equate to supporting the IRA?” That answer is pure BS, we are talking about the acts of the Houthis firing missiles on civilian ships, and people chanting support for that, condemn it or support it. Clear But it is every fucking thread! Ok maybe not EVERY fucking thread. But a lot of fucking threads. The same people going back and fourth appearing to be goading or trying to gotcha. Putting words in each other’s mouths. Not really reading what the other says or believing their explanation when what they wrote may not be clear enough. It's difficult because even when you read and respond to EXACT words, you get told 'you made that up'. There's at least 2 prominent posters who debate using that method. What's the solution? No idea I just fancied a moan (not the Michelle type )"I heard she's a right nasty **** | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country?" Haven't read the whole thread (I still value my sanity) As soon as you ban political party's then democracy is dead. If extreme views are supported by the majority then they are no longer extreme. If policy is against current laws then a new majority government will change the law. So no longer illegal. Democracy is government by the will and consent of the majority of the people. Take that away and it's either dictatorship or revolution. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If extreme views are supported by the majority then they are no longer extreme. " So a policy of repatriating foreign born legal citizens, supported by perhaps a third of the country (given voting numbers) wouldn’t be extreme? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If extreme views are supported by the majority then they are no longer extreme. So a policy of repatriating foreign born legal citizens, supported by perhaps a third of the country (given voting numbers) wouldn’t be extreme? " That is in danger of becoming a semantics argument over what is meant by a majority. As I am the OP then my definition in relation to the question is a majority of the population not those who vote in our stupid FPTP system. So at least 51% of the adult population. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If extreme views are supported by the majority then they are no longer extreme. So a policy of repatriating foreign born legal citizens, supported by perhaps a third of the country (given voting numbers) wouldn’t be extreme? That is in danger of becoming a semantics argument over what is meant by a majority. As I am the OP then my definition in relation to the question is a majority of the population not those who vote in our stupid FPTP system. So at least 51% of the adult population. " There has never been a poll that has been asked to the whole adult population so this could never be possible. There's a reason polls and votes are taken as representative, but obviously the people who are on the losing side like to use the lower number. Its all good when those same people are on the winning side though. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If extreme views are supported by the majority then they are no longer extreme. So a policy of repatriating foreign born legal citizens, supported by perhaps a third of the country (given voting numbers) wouldn’t be extreme? " Of course it would be extreme, but as I have already pointed out we are not in any danger of having those in this country! Best to use real examples of in life extreme policies, much more meaningful and stops the need to make up scenarios. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If extreme views are supported by the majority then they are no longer extreme. So a policy of repatriating foreign born legal citizens, supported by perhaps a third of the country (given voting numbers) wouldn’t be extreme? Of course it would be extreme, but as I have already pointed out we are not in any danger of having those in this country! Best to use real examples of in life extreme policies, much more meaningful and stops the need to make up scenarios. " I think it’s more beneficial to thing about what potential impact a decision might have, rather than saying ‘well that probably wont happen’ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Every fucking thread! Every one! That’s a rather large brush you seem to be sweeping up with…, The below is what I wanted confirmation on, as it is not clear on intent. Not fucking saying something, is always the get of jail card, I hear time and time again, “I didn’t say I supported them”, but often they never say they don’t outright either!! “ Palestinian support marches in London, protestors chanting Yemen, Yemen, make us proud, turn another ship around… not a direct link to the left, but these people are supporting extremism, what are you thinking? Let them get on with it, or condemn them as you said you would if extremists were in the UK Once again, supporting the innocent people of Palestine is not the same as supporting extremism. Does supporting Irish independence and unification also equate to supporting the IRA?” That answer is pure BS, we are talking about the acts of the Houthis firing missiles on civilian ships, and people chanting support for that, condemn it or support it. Clear But it is every fucking thread! Ok maybe not EVERY fucking thread. But a lot of fucking threads. The same people going back and fourth appearing to be goading or trying to gotcha. Putting words in each other’s mouths. Not really reading what the other says or believing their explanation when what they wrote may not be clear enough. " If someone hasn't got the balls to say what they think and skirt around subjects saying I never said x y z, in short trying to be smart, what do you fucking expect? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If extreme views are supported by the majority then they are no longer extreme. So a policy of repatriating foreign born legal citizens, supported by perhaps a third of the country (given voting numbers) wouldn’t be extreme? Of course it would be extreme, but as I have already pointed out we are not in any danger of having those in this country! Best to use real examples of in life extreme policies, much more meaningful and stops the need to make up scenarios. I think it’s more beneficial to thing about what potential impact a decision might have, rather than saying ‘well that probably wont happen’ " Using a real in life example of an extreme policy and transposing it into a scenario that it was introduced into the UK, would surely give you a better feel for how people would react or feel about such things. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If extreme views are supported by the majority then they are no longer extreme. So a policy of repatriating foreign born legal citizens, supported by perhaps a third of the country (given voting numbers) wouldn’t be extreme? Of course it would be extreme, but as I have already pointed out we are not in any danger of having those in this country! Best to use real examples of in life extreme policies, much more meaningful and stops the need to make up scenarios. I think it’s more beneficial to thing about what potential impact a decision might have, rather than saying ‘well that probably wont happen’ Using a real in life example of an extreme policy and transposing it into a scenario that it was introduced into the UK, would surely give you a better feel for how people would react or feel about such things." My scenario is real life, in that it’s what sparked the discussion - discussions involving a remember of the AfD and some prominent neo-Nazis | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If extreme views are supported by the majority then they are no longer extreme. So a policy of repatriating foreign born legal citizens, supported by perhaps a third of the country (given voting numbers) wouldn’t be extreme? Of course it would be extreme, but as I have already pointed out we are not in any danger of having those in this country! Best to use real examples of in life extreme policies, much more meaningful and stops the need to make up scenarios. I think it’s more beneficial to thing about what potential impact a decision might have, rather than saying ‘well that probably wont happen’ Using a real in life example of an extreme policy and transposing it into a scenario that it was introduced into the UK, would surely give you a better feel for how people would react or feel about such things. My scenario is real life, in that it’s what sparked the discussion - discussions involving a remember of the AfD and some prominent neo-Nazis " It really isn't, someone made that up. "Of course everyone who has German citizenship is part of our people," said Alice Weidel, the AfD's co-leader. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If extreme views are supported by the majority then they are no longer extreme. So a policy of repatriating foreign born legal citizens, supported by perhaps a third of the country (given voting numbers) wouldn’t be extreme? Of course it would be extreme, but as I have already pointed out we are not in any danger of having those in this country! Best to use real examples of in life extreme policies, much more meaningful and stops the need to make up scenarios. I think it’s more beneficial to thing about what potential impact a decision might have, rather than saying ‘well that probably wont happen’ Using a real in life example of an extreme policy and transposing it into a scenario that it was introduced into the UK, would surely give you a better feel for how people would react or feel about such things. My scenario is real life, in that it’s what sparked the discussion - discussions involving a remember of the AfD and some prominent neo-Nazis It really isn't, someone made that up. "Of course everyone who has German citizenship is part of our people," said Alice Weidel, the AfD's co-leader." Are you saying the meeting never happened? Are you saying that Martin Selner wasn’t there? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If extreme views are supported by the majority then they are no longer extreme. So a policy of repatriating foreign born legal citizens, supported by perhaps a third of the country (given voting numbers) wouldn’t be extreme? Of course it would be extreme, but as I have already pointed out we are not in any danger of having those in this country! Best to use real examples of in life extreme policies, much more meaningful and stops the need to make up scenarios. I think it’s more beneficial to thing about what potential impact a decision might have, rather than saying ‘well that probably wont happen’ Using a real in life example of an extreme policy and transposing it into a scenario that it was introduced into the UK, would surely give you a better feel for how people would react or feel about such things. My scenario is real life, in that it’s what sparked the discussion - discussions involving a remember of the AfD and some prominent neo-Nazis It really isn't, someone made that up. "Of course everyone who has German citizenship is part of our people," said Alice Weidel, the AfD's co-leader. Are you saying the meeting never happened? Are you saying that Martin Selner wasn’t there? " I'm telling you what came from the mouth of Alice Weidel. Something I've previously told you. I've also previously told you you've fallen for a 'secret meeting' where 'something was said' without zero evidence. Now you're spouting that it's a real life scenario knowing full well there's zero proof. This is why you're impossible to converse with. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If extreme views are supported by the majority then they are no longer extreme. So a policy of repatriating foreign born legal citizens, supported by perhaps a third of the country (given voting numbers) wouldn’t be extreme? Of course it would be extreme, but as I have already pointed out we are not in any danger of having those in this country! Best to use real examples of in life extreme policies, much more meaningful and stops the need to make up scenarios. I think it’s more beneficial to thing about what potential impact a decision might have, rather than saying ‘well that probably wont happen’ Using a real in life example of an extreme policy and transposing it into a scenario that it was introduced into the UK, would surely give you a better feel for how people would react or feel about such things. My scenario is real life, in that it’s what sparked the discussion - discussions involving a remember of the AfD and some prominent neo-Nazis It really isn't, someone made that up. "Of course everyone who has German citizenship is part of our people," said Alice Weidel, the AfD's co-leader. Are you saying the meeting never happened? Are you saying that Martin Selner wasn’t there? I'm telling you what came from the mouth of Alice Weidel. Something I've previously told you. I've also previously told you you've fallen for a 'secret meeting' where 'something was said' without zero evidence. Now you're spouting that it's a real life scenario knowing full well there's zero proof. This is why you're impossible to converse with. " Just say you made it up, it's no big deal. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If extreme views are supported by the majority then they are no longer extreme. So a policy of repatriating foreign born legal citizens, supported by perhaps a third of the country (given voting numbers) wouldn’t be extreme? Of course it would be extreme, but as I have already pointed out we are not in any danger of having those in this country! Best to use real examples of in life extreme policies, much more meaningful and stops the need to make up scenarios. I think it’s more beneficial to thing about what potential impact a decision might have, rather than saying ‘well that probably wont happen’ Using a real in life example of an extreme policy and transposing it into a scenario that it was introduced into the UK, would surely give you a better feel for how people would react or feel about such things. My scenario is real life, in that it’s what sparked the discussion - discussions involving a remember of the AfD and some prominent neo-Nazis It really isn't, someone made that up. "Of course everyone who has German citizenship is part of our people," said Alice Weidel, the AfD's co-leader. Are you saying the meeting never happened? Are you saying that Martin Selner wasn’t there? I'm telling you what came from the mouth of Alice Weidel. Something I've previously told you. I've also previously told you you've fallen for a 'secret meeting' where 'something was said' without zero evidence. Now you're spouting that it's a real life scenario knowing full well there's zero proof. This is why you're impossible to converse with. " I’m saying that the meeting happened, and one of the people present was someone who has stated a policy of repatriating foreign born legal citizens. AfD personel were there (which is why an advisor to Alice Weidel has been given the boot from the party. Is any of what I said in that paragraph incorrect? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the Germany thread. Q1. Should all political parties, regardless of their beliefs and policies and no matter how extreme, be permitted to stand for election in a democracy? Q2. If democracy is about representing the will of the people, then what if a majority of a country’s population held the same view and supported an “extreme” policy?" even if that was against the current laws of the country? Haven't read the whole thread (I still value my sanity) As soon as you ban political party's then democracy is dead. If extreme views are supported by the majority then they are no longer extreme. If policy is against current laws then a new majority government will change the law. So no longer illegal. Democracy is government by the will and consent of the majority of the people. Take that away and it's either dictatorship or revolution. " It's particularly difficult in Germany with the AFD and they are discussing ways to stop or severely hinder the party not just individuals. Removing tax breaks that all other parties get is one idea. Problem they have is that the AFD seems to have real support and are no longer small fry. With the PR system they use it also makes it more likely that they will see that support turn into seats in their parliament. Other parties seem to becoming to the conclusion that they can't beat them in a fair election so better to stop them competing in the first place. In doing so they become the very thing they seek to avoid. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
