Suicide bomb gang guilty of plotting 'worst ever terror attack in Britain'

[Phil H]

It's the words that lead on to the actions, FM. Don't you get that?????

I'm outta here too. No point.

[Fleetwood Mac]

It's the words that lead on to the actions, FM. Don't you get that?????

I'm outta here too. No point.

That's interesting because I could have sworn you said earlier something like: "the law is underpinned by the concept of innocent until proven guilty".

Clearly, words will result in violence at times. Two people fighting in the street on a Saturday night after too much beer. Left-wingers at countless demonstrations against Capitalism and tax increases.

What are we to do? Ban anyone expressing a left-wing view because of the actions of a few extremists?

The law exists to promote the opportunity to not use violence as an expression of politics, not to make assumptions about who is and isn't predisposed to violence.

When you boil it down to its bones, totalitarians shut people down because they don't fit their vision for society.

[Phil H]

Wrong-headed, with a closed mind, factually incorrect, outdated and other words I won't mention... Since you do not engage in dialogue, there's no point in continuing FM.

I have never seen a response to some of the important comparative questions I asked in an earlier post btw.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Wrong-headed, with a closed mind, factually incorrect, outdated and other words I won't mention... Since you do not engage in dialogue, there's no point in continuing FM.

I have never seen a response to some of the important comparative questions I asked in an earlier post btw.

Well, you tell me, Phil.

What are we to do?

Ban freedom of speech for environmentalists or anti-capitalists because a minority of them resort to violence?

[Phil H]

The violence is already illegal, no more is required.

Unlike racists and homosphobes etc, environmentalists or anti-capitalists (to use your two examples) do not target minorities or particular groups of people.

You still have not answered my direct questions, nor clarified the point about the French Revolution. That in itself indicates the falsity of your position.

[jason_c]

The violence is already illegal, no more is required.

Unlike racists and homosphobes etc, environmentalists or anti-capitalists (to use your two examples) do not target minorities or particular groups of people.

You still have not answered my direct questions, nor clarified the point about the French Revolution. That in itself indicates the falsity of your position.

Sorry for jumping in on the debate. Despite some occasional name calling its been interesting to read. I'd like to pick up on the racist and homophobe part. A person can reasonably argue that gays should not be allowed to marry in church or adopt, while other believe they should be allowed to do both. Now, is someone who is against full rights for gays homophobic?

The same goes for race too. All too often people who do not have a fully enlightened attitudes to race are labelled racists. Its an easy way of automatically putting someone on the defensive. Personally, I dont care overly much about other races. I dont want to see harm done to them, but neither do I wish to see my taxes spent on subsidizing others racial agenda.

As for environmentalists not targetting other groups we do have members of that lobby who do attack property of farmers. We also have anti-capitalists who do attack people in authority, whether it be the police, or the car carrying Prince Charles. Then we have the riots of 2011. Some anti-capitalist groups supported and defended the riots; riots which lead to the deaths of a handful of people.

[Phil H]

My own personal test in the debate in the Uk on same-sex marriage, was to look at the arguments employed and see how they would have fitted into the racial equality debates of the 60s or the earlier discussions about womens' rights.

I concluded that most of the arguments being employed AGAINST same sex marriage were the same as their predecessors. Society has NOT fallen apart as the result of women or coloured people/ethnic minorities being treated equally - it has CHANGED, true, but it still functions.

Would anyone (extremists apart) now seek to take away womans' or ethnic groups' rights?

A significant proportion of the population does not regard itself as heterosexual - maybe one in twenty, as I understand it. Why should they be treated in an unequal or demeaning way any more than if they had brown hair, blond hair or grey eyes? Why should sexuality be an issue any more than whether someone is right or left handed? We would not argue the latter was perverse (though that was done in the past) so why the former.

My mind is not closed to the question of religious views - though I do question the interpretation put on the Christian Bible by some sects (I am a Christian by the way) which sets aside some ancient taboos (say on the food eaten/clothes worn) but not others, and perceives some stories (Onan for instance) in a strange way, as if trying to justify their views.

I believe that social and population pressures will, in any case challenge many of these teachings in the foreseeable future - non-use of condoms, for instance - given that they have an impact on society and the population in terms of numbers of children, benefit requirement etc. That is a different debate, but I cite it to show that I do not see theological dogma as necessarily immutable.

Phil

[jason_c]

My own personal test in the debate in the Uk on same-sex marriage, was to look at the arguments employed and see how they would have fitted into the racial equality debates of the 60s or the earlier discussions about womens' rights.

I concluded that most of the arguments being employed AGAINST same sex marriage were the same as their predecessors. Society has NOT fallen apart as the result of women or coloured people/ethnic minorities being treated equally - it has CHANGED, true, but it still functions.

Would anyone (extremists apart) now seek to take away womans' or ethnic groups' rights?

A significant proportion of the population does not regard itself as heterosexual - maybe one in twenty, as I understand it. Why should they be treated in an unequal or demeaning way any more than if they had brown hair, blond hair or grey eyes? Why should sexuality be an issue any more than whether someone is right or left handed? We would not argue the latter was perverse (though that was done in the past) so why the former.

My mind is not closed to the question of religious views - though I do question the interpretation put on the Christian Bible by some sects (I am a Christian by the way) which sets aside some ancient taboos (say on the food eaten/clothes worn) but not others, and perceives some stories (Onan for instance) in a strange way, as if trying to justify their views.

I believe that social and population pressures will, in any case challenge many of these teachings in the foreseeable future - non-use of condoms, for instance - given that they have an impact on society and the population in terms of numbers of children, benefit requirement etc. That is a different debate, but I cite it to show that I do not see theological dogma as necessarily immutable.

Phil

Personally I have no problems with gays marrying in a registry office. However, if the Church wants to continue banning gay marriage within its own institution then thats fine by me too. Should gays be allowed to adopt? Thats another matter entirely. My leaning is towards no they should not. Is this homophobia on my part? or a reasonable(though not necessarily correct) view to take? The same goes for fertility treatment for lesbians paid by the NHS. Being lesbian kinda means your limited in your ability to have kids. IF lesbians do try to have kids then I see no reason as to why I should pay for it. Let them try fertility treatment at there own expense. Therefore im advocating discriminating against lesbians. Is this me being homophobic?

Your argument about society not having fallen apart is also a bit misleading. Societies do not fall apart within a generation. Societies fall apart over a period of time. 30-40 years of liberal policy does not mean society is not under strain. My home town was the first city in Scotland to have more than 50% of its newborn children not born to married couples(in my view almost entirely due to government policy). Children are now being brought up by the state as much as by parents. Well, this is a trend coming to a city near you. I may just be an old fashioned fuddy duddy. However, such a short term view as you take does seem a bit short-cited.

[Phil H]

Your views are, of course, your own and you are entitled to them. To me, however, they raise some questions.

These days we can work wonders it seems.

BUT: should NHS treatment be available to those who have made themselves ill by eating or drinking or smoking to excess - or who do not agree to give up if treatment is given? I have no answer - just the question.

Is a child adopted by a couple who divorce or break-up, who drink or are violent, any worse of than a child with two "dads" or two "mums" but who LOVE EACH OTHER?

Since IVF treatment/surrogate mothers can be bought by RICH gay/lesbian people, why should those who are poorer be penalised.

If a catholic family can bring multiple children into being as a result of their church's teaching - should the state pay welfare if required?

One of the positive things about same sex marriage, as it seems to me, is that it will force a rethink of "husband"/"wife" roles for straight couples too. That will be good for male/female gender equality and might lead to more "house husbands" and more working wives - assuming that fits particular couples.

Women have benefited in my lifetime from medical and scientific advances, that have enabled them to change their roles. They have much more control over their bodies, cycles and fertility. That I see as generally progressive and good for society.

So why should not people whose sexuality is different not have equal rights - just as colour, race etc now makes no difference to how one is treated?

Finally, you wrote:

Your argument about society not having fallen apart is also a bit misleading. Societies do not fall apart within a generation. Societies fall apart over a period of time. 30-40 years of liberal policy does not mean society is not under strain.


but actually society has been changing for much longer than 40 years, in "liberal" ways.

1832 - 1st Reform Bill - since then the sufferage has been progressively expanded to all over 18

Early 1900s - women's rights movement.

Late c19th and onwards - discussion of female contraception.

1960s -the pill

1968ish - homosexuality legalised (lesbianism was never illegal).

So we have well over a century of liberalisation, sexual, gender, democratic, inclusive etc etc - and society has not collapsed. If anything society is STRONGER today. I could go back even further - The Reformation (1520s onward), married priests etc did not cause it to collapse. Neither did FM's beloved French Revolution. So I don't think time is a factor here, frankly.

Phil

[Ally]

Should gays be allowed to adopt? Thats another matter entirely. My leaning is towards no they should not. Is this homophobia on my part? or a reasonable(though not necessarily correct) view to take?

It depends, you haven't given your reasons for not wanting gays to adopt. Kind of hard to determine whether you are a homophobe or not when you haven't provided your reasons.

The same goes for fertility treatment for lesbians paid by the NHS. Being lesbian kinda means your limited in your ability to have kids. IF lesbians do try to have kids then I see no reason as to why I should pay for it. Let them try fertility treatment at there own expense. Therefore im advocating discriminating against lesbians. Is this me being homophobic?

It depends. Are you also against infertility treatments for straight couples? Being infertile also kind of means that you are limited in your ability to have kids, so do you likewise think "why should I have to pay for some breeders who can't get knocked up?" If you are fine with straight people getting infertility treatments on your dime, but not homosexuals, then yes, you are being homophobic.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The violence is already illegal, no more is required.

Unlike racists and homosphobes etc, environmentalists or anti-capitalists (to use your two examples) do not target minorities or particular groups of people.

I see, so we have the justified and the unjustified. And you are making the distinction on the back of 'not targetting particular groups of people' a) think you should reconsider your opinion in this matter b) no thanks mate, would much rather have racists being able to speak and take the risk of violence than you and the mob deciding who is and isn't justified.

You still have not answered my direct questions, nor clarified the point about the French Revolution. That in itself indicates the falsity of your position.

Not sure how can you derive 'falsity' (is that a word) from something which you gladly admit I haven't commented on. Suppose it demonstrates your judgement.

Go on then, mate, what are your questions?

[Phil H]

Go on then, mate, what are your questions?

Your ignorance of them demonstrates that you never read my posts.

Scroll back they are there - I am not your skivvy.

[jason_c]

It depends, you haven't given your reasons for not wanting gays to adopt. Kind of hard to determine whether you are a homophobe or not when you haven't provided your reasons.



It depends. Are you also against infertility treatments for straight couples? Being infertile also kind of means that you are limited in your ability to have kids, so do you likewise think "why should I have to pay for some breeders who can't get knocked up?" If you are fine with straight people getting infertility treatments on your dime, but not homosexuals, then yes, you are being homophobic.

Im against gays adopting because it has yet to be determined what kind of affect being brought up by two gay men has on a child. I dont wish a group of children to be used as a social experiment by state adoption agencies.

No, im for heterosexual couples being given fertility treatment on my money. Infertility is no fault to the couple involved. It is not a lifestyle choice that has made them infertile. Gays and lesbians by there own lifestyle choices are infertile. The sexuality of both in the relationship has discriminated against there child bearing abilities. Im not willing to pay for nature discriminating against a gay couple.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Go on then, mate, what are your questions?

Your ignorance of them demonstrates that you never read my posts.

Scroll back they are there - I am not your skivvy.

Got lost in amongst all the bluster about the racists who need to be banned and the anti-capitalists who don't target particular groups.

I was only responding to your request to have your questions answered. I'm not invested enough to scroll back as you've posted loads of stuff and none of it was stimulating, and I pretty much know what's coming anyway - it's predictable and underpinned by "I'm so fair and equal; in fact I'm so fair and equal I want to stop people from speaking".

More than happy just to leave it here.

[jason_c]

Your views are, of course, your own and you are entitled to them. To me, however, they raise some questions.

These days we can work wonders it seems.

BUT: should NHS treatment be available to those who have made themselves ill by eating or drinking or smoking to excess - or who do not agree to give up if treatment is given? I have no answer - just the question.

Is a child adopted by a couple who divorce or break-up, who drink or are violent, any worse of than a child with two "dads" or two "mums" but who LOVE EACH OTHER?

Since IVF treatment/surrogate mothers can be bought by RICH gay/lesbian people, why should those who are poorer be penalised.

If a catholic family can bring multiple children into being as a result of their church's teaching - should the state pay welfare if required?

One of the positive things about same sex marriage, as it seems to me, is that it will force a rethink of "husband"/"wife" roles for straight couples too. That will be good for male/female gender equality and might lead to more "house husbands" and more working wives - assuming that fits particular couples.

Women have benefited in my lifetime from medical and scientific advances, that have enabled them to change their roles. They have much more control over their bodies, cycles and fertility. That I see as generally progressive and good for society.

So why should not people whose sexuality is different not have equal rights - just as colour, race etc now makes no difference to how one is treated?

Finally, you wrote:

Your argument about society not having fallen apart is also a bit misleading. Societies do not fall apart within a generation. Societies fall apart over a period of time. 30-40 years of liberal policy does not mean society is not under strain.


but actually society has been changing for much longer than 40 years, in "liberal" ways.

1832 - 1st Reform Bill - since then the sufferage has been progressively expanded to all over 18

Early 1900s - women's rights movement.

Late c19th and onwards - discussion of female contraception.

1960s -the pill

1968ish - homosexuality legalised (lesbianism was never illegal).

So we have well over a century of liberalisation, sexual, gender, democratic, inclusive etc etc - and society has not collapsed. If anything society is STRONGER today. I could go back even further - The Reformation (1520s onward), married priests etc did not cause it to collapse. Neither did FM's beloved French Revolution. So I don't think time is a factor here, frankly.

Phil

Treatment is already rationed against those who live an unhealthy lifestyle. I dont know if it is official policy but im certain doctors/managers make these decisions all the time, though they dont necessarily broadcast the fact.

Poorer people are invariably discriminated against for non essential treatment. Thats one of the benefits of people being rich; they are not reliant on the state. Its why rich people have lovely teeth, they pay for it themselves.

By liberal policy I mean the policies that are introduced which change lifestyle or behaviour. Giving a woman a vote does not (directly at least) change lifestyle or behaviour. State funding to single parents(as an example) does change life choices and decisions.