Jacob Rees-Mogg
Discussion
Russian Troll Bot said:
He, his children and Nanny confronted by a group of "class warriors" outside their house. John McDonnell would be proud
https://order-order.com/2018/09/12/police-called-m...
It’s all that the left have left, intimidation and hate. They have tried to convince the electorate through reason and have failed, so many of them seem to have given up and let their true feelings show through.https://order-order.com/2018/09/12/police-called-m...
James_B said:
Russian Troll Bot said:
He, his children and Nanny confronted by a group of "class warriors" outside their house. John McDonnell would be proud
https://order-order.com/2018/09/12/police-called-m...
It’s all that the left have left, intimidation and hate. They have tried to convince the electorate through reason and have failed, so many of them seem to have given up and let their true feelings show through.https://order-order.com/2018/09/12/police-called-m...
jjlynn27 said:
It's not just a question of his personal belief. It's a question of what he is doing with his personal belief. In case of JRM he is using his position as an MP to vote against equality of someone on the basis of their sexuality. What he is doing, IMO, is abdicating critical thought in favour of a text in a book written a long time ago. If you go down that road, where do you stop? Preventing women from deciding on abortion even in the case of rape? Incest? Because a good book told him that life begins at conception? Where do you go with;
I'm not sure that's right - he would presumably argue that he is in favour of equality, that anyone can get married, but that the definition of marriage is that it's an act between a man and a woman. The rights of a same sex couple to marry don't only require a change in the law. They also require a re-definiton of 'marriage'. As I say, I'm in favour of same sex marriage, but it does require that re-definition. Personally, I favour the French system where the state conducts the legally recognised marriage (which they have effectively re-defined) and churches/synagogues/mosques/jedi priests/etc can use their definitions to decide who and how to marry their members, as their marriage ceremonies are not legally recognised unions. Makes life much simpler for everyoneleviticus 20 13 said:
If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them.
Lentilist said:
Or possibly it's being quoted as thinking women who abort a pregnancy after rape are committing "a second wrong", or that he's "not proud same sex marriage is legal". Portraying him purely as a victim of inverse class snobbery is insane.
I disagree with both of house positions but have no idea why anyone would express hatred towards someone who holds them. They are both clearly positions that a reasonable person can hold.James_B said:
It’s all that the left have left, intimidation and hate. They have tried to convince the electorate through reason and have failed, so many of them seem to have given up and let their true feelings show through.
Just wow................................ some might say though better words than shooting a politician whose political views you don't like. the right seem to be far more extreme than the left in this country atm jjlynn27 said:
jonby said:
I also have an interesting question with reference to a point made by another poster above - is someone against gay marriage necessarily a homophobe ? It's a question I struggle with. The argument against gay marriage from the likes of JRM seems to be based solely on the fact that their definition of marriage is that of the bible, which is between a man and a woman, making it quite literally impossible for two people of the same sex to 'marry'. However much one supports gay marriage (as I do), I'm not convinced that his argument is necessarily homophobic. Thoughts ?
It's not just a question of his personal belief. It's a question of what he is doing with his personal belief. In case of JRM he is using his position as an MP to vote against equality of someone on the basis of their sexuality.jjlynn27 said:
You shouldn't. Given that you've mentioned it, it's obviously something that you think about. 'Reputation' on a car forum. Bless.
It’s ‘obvious’ that your mind-reading skills are still failing, perhaps better to give up totally, rather than incorrectly (and tediously) keep making false guesses about what other people think.jjlynn27 said:
No mind reading skills needed. Given your history of 'mistakes'; Ocamm's razor and all that.
You’re still wrong. Never mind.By the way, it’s Occam’s razor.
jjlynn27 said:
As for the rest; If you claim that someone else's choice of years was disingenous*, isn't it obvious that you'll be asked to say which ones would you chose, as to not be disingenuous, or whichever adjective you were using? See, I'm asking you question based on your own claim (without quoting myself twice).
Did I say that your “choice of years was disingenuous”, or that “you were being disingenuous with data...”?You chose to highlight the word ‘collapsed’ and tried to ignore the word ‘anomalous’. You then ‘doubled up’ with your comment:
jjlynn27 said:
See that word in bold? That's a rather suitable description of what going from 196Bn to 15Bn means
jjlynn27 said:
To try to segue (thanks duck) this to the thread, do you support homophobic MPs? Do you think that people with different sexual preferences don't deserve to be equal?
I'll understand if you don't want to answer that.
No I don’t support those views. However I don’t think that JRM lacks integrity, just because I don’t agree with some of his views.I'll understand if you don't want to answer that.
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 13th September 17:58
wst said:
Hayek said:
I'm not particularly fussed about gay marriage, but the idea that there was not equality (of opportunity) before it existed is rubbish IMO.
I mean, apart from there not being equality of opportunity for gay people to get married, you really hit it on the nose.wst said:
narchists are famously "the left". You seem to be attacking schrodingers lefty - the one that wants to have an authoritarian communist regime with no government.
I’m attacking those who use I timidation and hatred in place of discourse. It has become mainstream on the Left since Momentum were in the ascendancy, it seems absent entirely on the mainstream right.I’ve heard people on the left advocate lynching bankers, the worst those on the right manage seems to be letting people have a slightly tough life while maintaining a reasonable safety net.
James_B said:
wst said:
narchists are famously "the left". You seem to be attacking schrodingers lefty - the one that wants to have an authoritarian communist regime with no government.
I’m attacking those who use I timidation and hatred in place of discourse. It has become mainstream on the Left since Momentum were in the ascendancy, it seems absent entirely on the mainstream right.I’ve heard people on the left advocate lynching bankers, the worst those on the right manage seems to be letting people have a slightly tough life while maintaining a reasonable safety net.
wst said:
hat is patently false though. There's plenty of it on the mainstream right, and it is absurd/stupid/lazy (pick one) to bring "the left" into a discussion about the actions of an anarchist.
I'm trying to recall the last time a Conservative cabinet member called for harassment in the streets, and failing. I'm also trying to recall the last time I heard of a Labour MP being abused in front of their family in public. I can only recall one example - and that individual was far from mainstream.
amusingduck said:
I think you can be against gay marriage without being a homophobe, though I imagine those people are in the minority of gay marriage opposers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrD8zvCUtWc
This is the only argument against gay marriage I've seen that I would consider as being a valid point. I really love how eloquently and cohesively he's able to make his point
Definitions are descriptive not prescriptive. If society understands marriage to mean something different than it once did, it’s definition changes with that understanding. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrD8zvCUtWc
This is the only argument against gay marriage I've seen that I would consider as being a valid point. I really love how eloquently and cohesively he's able to make his point
Legalising Gay marriage is a reaction, I would say, to an already changed understanding and definition of marriage.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff