View Full Version : UK General Election 2017
Greyblades
05-12-2017, 17:45
He's cornish, not welsh.
Seamus Fermanagh
05-12-2017, 18:58
British politics, in this thread alone, has swirled downwards in every shrinking circles from Brexit and the Eu, through fox-hunting....and hence to regional preferences regarding bestiality with domesticated livestock.
Sounds like your election is going to produce the kind of glorious results achieved here on this side of the pond.
Cannot say we're vastly better on the ovine issue either. Once drove past an advert sign for a sex toys shop in San Francisco on which they were advertising the sale of inflatable sheep. No doubt purely for sanitary reasons....
Pannonian
05-12-2017, 20:20
British politics, in this thread alone, has swirled downwards in every shrinking circles from Brexit and the Eu, through fox-hunting....and hence to regional preferences regarding bestiality with domesticated livestock.
Sounds like your election is going to produce the kind of glorious results achieved here on this side of the pond.
Cannot say we're vastly better on the ovine issue either. Once drove past an advert sign for a sex toys shop in San Francisco on which they were advertising the sale of inflatable sheep. No doubt purely for sanitary reasons....
Not sheep, but similar.
Bartender (forgetting his wardrobe, loves an inflatable pig) - Whose Line UK (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOcw-5hGhAY)
British politics, in this thread alone, has swirled downwards in every shrinking circles from Brexit and the Eu, through fox-hunting....and hence to regional preferences regarding bestiality with domesticated livestock.
Sounds like your election is going to produce the kind of glorious results achieved here on this side of the pond.
Cannot say we're vastly better on the ovine issue either. Once drove past an advert sign for a sex toys shop in San Francisco on which they were advertising the sale of inflatable sheep. No doubt purely for sanitary reasons....
You can have your turn to laugh at the preposterous, trivial, wrongheaded and counterproductive bickering that constitutes our politics. We look on your country's bizzare obsession with Christianity, being able to machine gun fellow citizens and stopping women having abortions with the same incredulity :)
Sarmatian
05-12-2017, 21:12
Yes, but he expects you to be better. All Americans have a secret fascination with all things British, hence the need to bring them down by having them play villains in Hollywood. That's for the masses, while the "cultural elite" is trying to emulate them unsuccessfully.
Which is all together very funny as every European knows that British are just arrogant schmucks who like to abuse their own taste buds and think that an umbrella can make a person look fashionable.
Greyblades
05-12-2017, 21:20
You say you think so little of us, yet you obsess over every action we make.
You really need to accept we're just not that into you anymore, move on.
Labour's leaked manifesto proves it's stuck in the 1970s, unlike those ultra-modern Tories who love fox hunting
Everyone agrees Labour’s leaked manifesto will take us back to the 1970s, which is why we must re-elect the Conservatives so they can embrace the future, with policies such as bringing back fox hunting.
Nothing says you’re grasping the digital age and leaving the past behind as much as dressing in a red tunic and galloping over a fence with beagles so you can catch a fox and celebrate its liver being ripped out by smearing its blood on your child’s cheek. That’s the sort of futuristic vision you’d get from a brainstorming session at Apple.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/labour-leaked-manifesto-1970s-stuck-tories-fox-hunting-jeremy-corbyn-theresa-may-a7730941.html
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-12-2017, 22:27
Bradshaw was knocking on doors on my street earlier in the week. Can't stand the man - traitorous blairite tosser. I'm in Heavitree.
We agree on Bradshaw at least. Also, I am also in Heavitree.
Maybe we're actually the same person Jekyll and Hyde style.
As for foxes killing sheep. Those sheep were going to be electrocuted, bled and evicerated any how.
A fair point, certainly, but at least we eat the sheep. Although, we only kill the male lambs, foxes kill both male and female - and often panic and leave the carcass.
Considering my Terrier doesn't feel neglected as I refuse to put a red coat on, happily exposing her belly for tickles; I don't think hounds are particularly affected by not being allowed to hunt. If some idiot just locks them up in cages for rest of their life, then that person is an idiot who probably likes animal abuse.
Uh huh - a Terrier isn't a hound. Packhounds don't do particularly well outside a pack and irrc most of the hounds who hunted foxes were labled too dangerous to be re-housed and were troublesome for drag hunting, I believe a lot of them were shot.
There is the fundamental difference between "I am going to eat that sheep for food with a quick death", and "I am going to get a big stick, start chasing it around, beating it repeatedly, making sure to torture it inhumanely and relish in its pain and suffering." As you said yourself intention. Fox Hunting with Hounds is a Blood Sport, and it is terrible for pest control too compared to other methods. People like the idea of hounds ripping apart hounds out of personal enjoyment, it is rather sick and perverse. I do have more sympathy with hunting in America, only because there are people who live in wild territories who actually hunt for their dinner.
How do you know people enjoy the kill?
I'm speaking from personal experience here, I don't enjoy the idea - although I'm not good enough to hunt on horseback (and was too young before it was banned anyway), none of the horsemen or horsewomen I know enjoyed that idea either.
You need to just stop assigning emotions to others based on your own sensibilities.
Doesn't stop them even with the ban in place. Probably never did before either.
That's because there's a lack of social pressure to confirm to the rules of hunting now. Hunting foxes is no longer licit and hunts no longer move in the same circles as farmers, necessarily. The younger generation are not as genteel as their forebears and do not occupy the same position in polite society. No social pressure to conform.
https://i.imgur.com/CMzmriV.jpg
Is May for a VAT increase? I do not believe so.
I'm saying that a sheep farm is in the business of killing lambs. Hating foxes because they kill lambs seems odd.
It is the business of killing sheep young and old, in fact. A nasty and unpleasent business to be sure, but you try to do it as kindly as possible.
Is May for a VAT increase? I do not believe so.
The table might be out of date, I didn't make it. Simply reposted it as it might give a simple quick access to different viewpoints. On checking, she has since ruled out increases to VAT after Labour said no, for the next 5 years (2022).
Seamus Fermanagh
05-13-2017, 01:45
Yes, but he expects you to be better. All Americans have a secret fascination with all things British, hence the need to bring them down by having them play villains in Hollywood. That's for the masses, while the "cultural elite" is trying to emulate them unsuccessfully....
Many do, Sarmatian, many do. Certainly, an English accent --preferably posh but without reaching the Oxbridge mumbletonian level -- gives you a better chance of getting laid than some yank with otherwise similar charm/looks/pelf.
For myself, however, I am a thorough-going yank and happy to be such, and if there is any monarchist sentiment lurking within me it is for an Ard Ri, not some genteel mélange of manners and restricted breeding.
I respect the Brits as our best ally. Though to be fair, if we are going to ignore Washington's advice, I think the special relationship should be a bit more of a two-way street than it has been these last few decades.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-13-2017, 02:01
He's cornish, not welsh.
Actually, I'm Welsh, not Cornish.
Gilrandir
05-13-2017, 12:26
I'm saying that a sheep farm is in the business of killing lambs. Hating foxes because they kill lambs seems odd.
Killing lambs to eat them and killing lambs for the plain fun of it are two different killings, aren't they?
Killing lambs to eat them and killing lambs for the plain fun of it are two different killings, aren't they?
They are, and as usual, the human negligence and killing for profit/fun are the real problems indeed.
http://www.conservativesagainstfoxhunting.com/2011/03/research-has-conclusively-shown-that-the-fox-is-a-scrounger-of-carrion-hunters-peddle-the-myth-that-foxes-are-a-terrible-problem-for-sheep-farmers/
One of the great myths that the hunters peddle is that foxes are a terrible problem for sheep farmers. It is rubbish of course, but as ever they don’t let inconvenient facts get in the way of their supposed justification for fox persecution.
Research has conclusively shown that the fox is primarily a scrounger of carrion. Animals that have died from disease, malnutrition and hypothermia all present feeding opportunities for foxes. Sadly many sheep farmers present the average fox with plenty of “fallen stock” as a feed supply.
[...]
Ask yourself, is the fox really responsible for all that the farmer claims and remember that it is all too easy for the incompetent and or lazy shepherd to blame the fox!
Farmers should take more personal responsibility and not try to outsource the blame and get the nanny state to fix the problems caused by their own negligence. Common sense! :creep:
Greyblades
05-13-2017, 14:11
Actually, I'm Welsh, not Cornish.
I walked right into that one.
My apologies.
We agree on Bradshaw at least. Also, I am also in Heavitree.
Maybe we're actually the same person Jekyll and Hyde style.
We've doubtless passed on the street. Heavitree is not more than 30 streets. Do you drink at any of the locals?
We've doubtless passed on the street. Heavitree is not more than 30 streets. Do you drink at any of the locals?
I don't think so, if you had actually come too close to one another there'd either have been an enormous explosion or a black hole.
With news that Trident (our Nuclear Submarine system) runs on Windows XP, along with news that the systems affected by the recent Ransomware attack use Windows XP and the decision by government not to upgrade these systems or extend security for them...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMI2tIGi1Iw
I don't think so, if you had actually come too close to one another there'd either have been an enormous explosion or a black hole.
You know, it is going to turn out they are related...
Elmetiacos
05-13-2017, 16:43
What gets me most is the Erdoğan-esque "strong and stable leadership" angle applied to Theresa May, when there is no way she has ever manifested anything like those qualities when you look at her record just in the last year:
Sat on her hands through the Referendum campaign, waiting to see who won.
Said "Er..." about Trump's Muslim ban until her spin doctors told her what she was supposed to think.
Left a big hole in her Chancellor's first budget because of mumbling by some Tory MPs.
Swore blind we wouldn't have an election because it would be destablising, then totally reversed her position.
Strong and stable my left foot.
You know, it is going to turn out they are related...
Neither of us are native to Exeter.
Neither of us are native to Exeter.
The plot thickens.
You know, it is going to turn out they are related...
Neither of us are native to Exeter.
Well, as the nationalists like to point out, it's an island, there are only so many choices: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-genetics-idUSL0131959120070801
:creep:
Well, as the nationalists like to point out, it's an island, there are only so many choices: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-genetics-idUSL0131959120070801
:creep:
Well, if they are both not from Exeter, then they could both hypothetically moved there together. They could be brothers, or even alter egos. If one was from Exeter and the other wasn't, then it would have been less likely they were related.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-13-2017, 22:00
I walked right into that one.
My apologies.
It's OK, Grockles are always making fun of us.
We've doubtless passed on the street. Heavitree is not more than 30 streets. Do you drink at any of the locals?
Probably.
Being a student originally I tend towards pubs in Town, but my local is the Bowling Green. Still not totally sure about the new management.
I don't think so, if you had actually come too close to one another there'd either have been an enormous explosion or a black hole.
Or a massive punch up.
You know, it is going to turn out they are related...
Neither of us are native to Exeter.
Not even natives of Devon irrc. Exeter is really quite cosmopolitan.
Well, if they are both not from Exeter, then they could both hypothetically moved there together. They could be brothers, or even alter egos. If one was from Exeter and the other wasn't, then it would have been less likely they were related.
Way to ruin an incest joke. :stare:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M91g4OlGEY
Bitter reality expressed through the lens of comedy. Many a true word is spoken in jest.
Pannonian
05-15-2017, 09:50
I've seen that video elsewhere. Did you get shared that video on Facebook or something similar? I remember last year, when I was posting account after account from resigned shadow ministers and aides, and you or someone posted a Jonathan Pie video and acted as though it was the height of wit and wisdom.
I've seen that video elsewhere. Did you get shared that video on Facebook or something similar? I remember last year, when I was posting account after account from resigned shadow ministers and aides, and you or someone posted a Jonathan Pie video and acted as though it was the height of wit and wisdom.
I do follow his page on Facebook and channel on youtube. I find it entertaining and I usually find that I agree with his viewpoint more often than not. This particular video is highlighting many things I have expressed before but in a more comedian and engaging fashion.
Though height of wit and wisdom is incorrect. I posted a video giving an alternative viewpoint of the situation which you found contemptible.
Pannonian
05-15-2017, 10:04
I do follow his page on Facebook and channel on youtube. I find it entertaining and I usually find that I agree with his viewpoint more often than not. This particular video is highlighting many things I have expressed before but in a more comedian and engaging fashion.
Though height of wit and wisdom is incorrect. I posted a video giving an alternative viewpoint of the situation which you found contemptible.
Probably because I was quoting primary sources at the time, from people who'd worked with Corbyn and found him to be incompetent, and then you posted a comment from a comedian to refute these primary accounts. "Bitter reality expressed through the lens of comedy. Many a true word is spoken in jest" apparently, whilst denying what people who are close to the actual events are saying.
UK plummets from 11th to 156th in global children's rights rankings
Strong and Stable (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/uk-global-childrens-rights-rankings-plummets-child-unicef-a7734426.html)
The UK has been accused of employing “inadequate” provision for children’s rights protection after it fell dramatically in global rankings for child rights within a year, from 11th to 156th.
Serious concerns have been raised about structural discrimination in the UK, including Muslim children facing increased discrimination following recent anti-terrorism measures, and a rise in discrimination against gypsy and refugee children in recent years.
The UK now ranks among the bottom 10 global performers in the arena of improving rights of the child, after it achieved the lowest-possible score across all six available indicators in the domain of Child Rights Environment (CRE), according to the KidsRights Index 2017.
Being a student originally I tend towards pubs in Town, but my local is the Bowling Green. Still not totally sure about the new management.
I used to drink in there. I am too busy and have too many kids to get much of a chance to go out. And when I do, I seem to gravitate to the quay
Or a massive punch up.
I'm not one for resorting to violence. Especially not on the basis of having ideological differences.
Not even natives of Devon irrc. Exeter is really quite cosmopolitan.
I'm from the south east.
Exeter is a funny mix. Much more recent immigration than much of the rest of the country. The large number of Chinese students seem to be the most notable new group.
Greyblades
05-15-2017, 16:08
UK plummets from 11th to 156th in global children's rights rankings
Strong and Stable (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/uk-global-childrens-rights-rankings-plummets-child-unicef-a7734426.html)
Pray, independant, tell me what this actually means. What children's rights are being denied, what abuses are being inflicted, what metric and method does the UNCRC and unicef employ in their assessments and why in gods name does thailand, the fucking paedophilia tourism capital of the world rank higher than all but 7 of the first world nations?
I mean look at the UK's score (http://www.kidsrightsindex.org/):
Life:0.966/10
Health 0.978/10
Education 0.844/10
Protection 0.959/10
Child Rights Environment 0.010/10
What in gods name is Child Rights Enviroment?
Indicators are
- Non-discrimination
- Best interest of the child
- Respect for the views of the child/child participation
- Enabling legislation
- Best available budget
- Collection and analysis of disaggregate data
- State-civil society cooperation for child rights
Well that doesnt look subjective in the extreme. What are the criteria for marking?
As explained earlier, in the KidsRights Index 2017, domain 5 (‘Enabling Environment for Child Rights’) has been updated with all Concluding Observations (COs) adopted by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in 2016.
Scoring System:
Score 1 ‘bad’ = only negative remarks
Score 2 ‘average’ = negative and positive remarks
Score 3 ‘good’ = only positive remarks
NA = not addressed
http://www.kidsrightsindex.org/Portals/5/The%20KidsRights%20Index%202017.pdf?ver=2017-05-11-124125-077
We were put below child prostitute central because the UN's Committee on the Rights of the Child concluding observations were negative. Not findings, not statistics, the negative comments of a committee in the most abused international organization in the world.
The same committee that gave Indonesia a complete pass.
Pannonian
05-15-2017, 17:01
And the Labour campaign is being run by a bloke who was a member of the Communist party this time last year. Not only that, but he's an apologist for Stalin and North Korea as well. Still, he has personal connections to Jeremy Corbyn and Len McCluskey, so he's naturally been welcomed by the Labour leader.
Oh, and in true Corbyn-esque style, he has to downplay any condemnation of Islamist terrorism as well by bringing in western imperialism as the greater evil. Andrew Murray on the Paris attacks:
We condemn the attacks in Paris unreservedly. But we also need to say that the barbarism we condemn in Paris is minute compared to the barbarism wrought by imperialism across the planet in the last thirteen years and we must condemn that barbarism all the more strongly.
Andrew Murray, 19th January 2015 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXq-NcbHgYM)
Note who introduces him.
Tory candidate for Exeter just knocked on the door. He used to live on the same street. He always seems like the lights are on but no one is really home.
Montmorency
05-15-2017, 19:53
I used to drink in there. I am too busy and have too many kids to get much of a chance to go out. And when I do, I seem to gravitate to the quay
I'm not one for resorting to violence. Especially not on the basis of having ideological differences.
What do you make of Antifa(scism) and "bash the fash"?
Greyblades Beskar About the Kids Rights Index report:
In this way countries that score the lowest possible score on all indicators within a specific domain, will also score very low on the total KidsRights Index. In the KidsRights Index 2017 this is the case for
Afghanistan (rank 164), Central African Republic (rank 165), New Zealand (rank 158), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (rank 156) and Vanuatu (rank 162).
Especially for New Zealand and the United Kingdom this resulted in a significantly lower score than was the case in earlier versions of the KidsRights Index.
New Zealand dropped from rank 45 to rank 158 in 2017 and the United Kingdom moved down from rank 11 to rank 156 in 2017.
According to the CRC Committee, New Zealand (158th), the United Kingdom (156th) Italy (83rd) and Luxembourg (56th), for example,
could do more to improve the enabling environment they have built for children’s rights. These wealthy countries should be able to
invest more in children’s rights, but fail to do so sufficiently. Thailand (8th) and Tunisia (9th) on the other hand deserve honourable mentions.
These countries rank relatively high compared to their economic status, as they do exceptionally well in cultivating an enabling environment for child rights.
Thailand for examples scores ‘good’ on the enabling legislation for children’s rights. In the 2017 ranking Thailand even climbed from rank 21 in the KidsRights Index
2016 to rank 8, especially owing to improved scores on primary and secondary school participation in domain 3 ‘Education).
Tunisia scores well on domain 5 ‘the enabling environment for child rights. The country also has a low adolescent births rate, therefore scoring relatively high on domain 4 ‘Protection’ (rank 22).
Among these countries, Brunei Darussalem (111 465), Peru (87>62) and South Africa (109>84) deserve honourable mentions for having risen among the ranks significantly since last year’s Index.
These countries score relatively high as they have improved substantially in fostering an enabling environment for children’s rights. To the contrary,
the United Kingdom (11>156), New Zealand (45>158), Slovakia (6>107), Saudi Arabia (80>144), Maldives (62>111) and Ireland (7>41) score remarkably poor compared to 2016
and are urged to do more to foster the rights of their youngest generation. The remaining two countries with striking differences between the 2017 and the 2016 results
are Canada (72>45) and Turkmenistan (85>42). For these countries, data on indicators that was previously not available caused a jump in their ranking.
According to the CRC, the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children,
so that when decisions are taken about the child they reflect what will serve the child best. On taking the best interests of the child at heart,
there is not a country in the world that scores ‘good’, while 48 countries score ‘bad’, including Australia, Canada, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom.
The (non-)availability of data remains influential. Of the twenty-seven countries that were subjected to CRC state reporting in 2016
thirteen countries realized the lowest possible score on the indicator collection and analysis of disaggregated data (indicating that the CO contains only negative remarks on this aspect).
These countries are Benin, Brunei Darussalam, France, Haiti, Ireland, Nauru, Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Slovakia and the United Kingdom.
TLDR: UK scores are still very high (higher than Thailand's) except for "Child Rights Environment", because (re: Collection and Analysis of Disaggregate Data) insufficient data from the year of reporting changes was submitted and that brought the score for the category down to 'near-zero', which in turn brought the geometric average down to near-zero. A similar effect occurred with a number of other European and Anglophone countries. In other words, the incomplete older format automatically scored lower for the new standards.
Their work seems to be perfectly valid and appropriate. You just didn't understand the methodology. On the other hand, this also renders Beskar's use of the measure in his criticism of "Strong and Stable" ineffective. The UK will presumably rise again in 2018 once they can submit the appropriate data and records. The year 2017 could be regarded as one in which broad comparisons along this ranking must be considered unreliable due to so many countries suffering on a basically administrative issue.
And the Labour campaign is being run by a bloke who was a member of the Communist party this time last year. Not only that, but he's an apologist for Stalin and North Korea as well. Still, he has personal connections to Jeremy Corbyn and Len McCluskey, so he's naturally been welcomed by the Labour leader.
Oh, and in true Corbyn-esque style, he has to downplay any condemnation of Islamist terrorism as well by bringing in western imperialism as the greater evil. Andrew Murray on the Paris attacks:
We condemn the attacks in Paris unreservedly. But we also need to say that the barbarism we condemn in Paris is minute compared to the barbarism wrought by imperialism across the planet in the last thirteen years and we must condemn that barbarism all the more strongly.
Andrew Murray, 19th January 2015 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXq-NcbHgYM)
Note who introduces him.
It is. Unequivocally.
Paris attacks = a few hundred. Iraq invasion = 1 million.
Greyblades
05-15-2017, 20:31
Their work seems to be perfectly valid and appropriate. You just didn't understand the methodology.
I understand the methodolgy I just find it's catagories too subjective for applicability and too reliant on the assessment of a source with a reputation of blatant partiality.
How can we hold valid the assessment of a organization that often makes such counter productive and antithetical decisions such as electing saudi arabia as the head of a women's rights comission?
How can it be a vaild and appropriate assessment when one of the paramiters is so broad and undefined as the "Best interest of the child" or "Respect for the views of the child"?
Pannonian
05-15-2017, 20:35
"Only in unity, north and south, east and West, European and middle Eastern will we defeat the NATO leaders."
Andrew Murray, currently heading the Labour party's 2017 general election campaign.
Montmorency
05-15-2017, 20:53
I understand the methodolgy I just find it's catagories too subjective for applicability and too reliant on the assessment of a source with a reputation of blatant partiality.
How can we hold valid the assessment of a organization that often makes such counter productive and antithetical decisions such as electing saudi arabia as the head of a women's rights comission?
How can it be a vaild and appropriate assessment when one of the paramiters is so broad and undefined as the "Best interest of the child" or "Respect for the views of the child"?
First of all, it's important to realize that the Kids Rights foundation is not affiliated with or a part of the United Nations. Secondly, any given office that may actually operate under the auspices of the UN are independent bureaucratic and technocratic agencies - whereas commission heads are elected by national representatives, typically on a rotating basis, with respect to the Women's Status Commission a secret ballot of 13 countries every four years. So your complaint just isn't relevant.
As to the actual categories of assessment, you would find it difficult to argue against them if you read them. They are only broad and undefined inasmuch as you don't understand them:
Domain 1. Life
Under-5 mortality rate - Probability of dying between birth and exactly 5 years of age, expressed per 1,000 live births.
Life expectancy at birth - Number of years newborn children would live if subject to the mortality risks prevailing for the cross
section of population at the time of their birth.
Maternal mortality ratio - Number of deaths of women from pregnancy-related causes per 100,000 live births during the same time
period.
Domain 2. Health
Underweight - Number of under-fives falling below minus 2 standard deviations (moderate and severe) and minus 3 standard
deviations (severe) from the median weight-for-age of the reference population.
Immunization (MCV1) - Percentage of surviving infants who received the first dose of the measles-containing vaccine.
Use of improved drinking water sources - Percentage of the population using any of the following as their main drinking water
source: drinking water supply piped into dwelling, plot, yard or neighbor’s yard; public tap or standpipe; tube well or borehole; protected
dug well; protected spring; rainwater; bottled water plus one of the previous sources as their secondary source.
Use of improved sanitation facilities - Percentage of the population using any of the following sanitation facilities, not shared
with other households: flush or pour-flush latrine connected to a piped sewerage system, septic tank or pit latrine; ventilated improved
pit latrine; pit latrine with a slab; composting toilet.
Domain 3. Education
Primary school participation = Primary school net enrolment ratio - Number of children enrolled in primary or secondary school
who are of official primary school age, expressed as a percentage of the total number of children of official primary school age.
Because of the inclusion of primary-school-aged children enrolled in secondary school, this indicator can also be referred to as a
primary adjusted net enrolment ratio.
Secondary school participation = Secondary school net enrolment ratio - Number of children enrolled in secondary school
who are of official secondary school age, expressed as a percentage of the total number of children of official secondary school age.
Secondary net enrolment ratio does not include secondary-school-age children enrolled in tertiary education, owing to challenges in
age reporting and recording at that level.
Primary school enrolment ratio (female as % of male) - Number of children enrolled in primary or secondary school who are
of official primary school age, expressed as females as a percentage of males.
Secondary school enrolment ratios (female as % of male) - Number of children enrolled in secondary school who are of
official primary school age, expressed as females as a percentage of males.
Survival rate to last grade of primary (female as % of male) - Percentage of children entering the first grade of primary
school who eventually reach the last grade of primary school, expressed as females as a percentage of males.
Primary school net attendance ratio (rural) = Primary school net attendance ratio - Number of children attending primary or
secondary school who are of official primary school age, expressed as a percentage of the total number of children of official primary
school age (in rural areas).
Domain 4. Protection
Child labour - Percentage of children 5–14 years old involved in child labour at the moment of the survey. A child is considered to be
involved in child labour under the following conditions: (a) children 5–11 years old who, during the reference week, did at least 1 hour of
economic activity or at least 28 hours of household chores, or (b) children 12–14 years old who, during the reference week, did at least
14 hours of economic activity or at least 28 hours of household chores.
Adolescent birth rate - Number of births per 1,000 adolescent girls aged 15–19.
Birth registration - Percentage of children less than 5 years old who were registered at the moment of the survey. The numerator of
this indicator includes children reported to have a birth certificate, regardless of whether or not it was seen by the interviewer, and those
without a birth certificate whose mother or caregiver says the birth has been registered.
Domain 5. Enabling Environment for Child Rights
Non-discrimination (Article 2) - The extent to which a country has operationalized the general principle of non-discrimination. The
Convention applies to all children, whatever their race, religion or abilities; whatever they think or say, whatever type of family they
come from. It doesn’t matter where children live, what language they speak, what their parents do, whether they are boys or girls, what
their culture is, whether they have a disability or whether they are rich or poor. No child should be discriminated unfairly on any basis.
Best interests of the child (Article 3) - The extent to which a country has operationalized the general principle of the best interests
of the child. The best interests of children must be the primary concern in making decisions that may affect them. All adults should do
what is best for children. When adults make decisions, they should think about how their decisions will affect children. This particularly
applies to budget, policy and law makers, public or private welfare institutions, courts of law and administrative authorities.
Enabling legislation (Article 4) - The extent to which there is a basic ‘infrastructure’ for making and implementing child rights policy,
with a particular emphasis on the legal framework for protecting and promoting children’s rights. According to the CRC, States Parties
shall undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures for the implementation of the Convention.
Best available budget (Article 4) - The extent to which there is a basic ‘infrastructure’ for making and implementing child rights
policy in the form of providing the maximum resources available to a country for protecting and promoting children’s rights. With
regard to economic, social and cultural rights, States Parties shall undertake such measures to the maximum extent of their available
resources and, where needed, within the framework of international co-operation.
Respect for the views of the child/child participation (Article 12) – The extent to which a country has operationalized the
general principle of respect for the views of the child. When adults are making decisions that affect children, children have the right
to say what they think should happen and have their opinions taken into account. This does not mean that children can now tell their
parents or others what to decide or do. The CRC encourages adults to listen to and seriously consider the opinions of children and
to involve them in decision-making – but not to give children authority over adults. Article 12 does not interfere with the parental right
and responsibility to direct and guide their child in exercising her/his rights or with the parental right to express their views on matters
affecting their children. Moreover, the Convention recognizes that the level of a child’s participation in decisions must be appropriate
to the child’s level of maturity or evolving capacities. Children’s ability to form and express their opinions usually develops with age
and most adults will naturally give the views of teenagers greater weight than those of a preschooler, whether in family, legal or
administrative decisions. Collection and analysis of disaggregate data (implied in Article 4) – The extent to which there is a basic ‘infrastructure’ for
making and implementing child rights policy in the form of the collection and analysis of disaggregated data (data collected on the
situation of particular (groups of) children in a country or children in a particular location) to protect and promote children’s rights.
State – civil society cooperation for child rights (implied in Articles 3 and 5) – The extent to which there is a basic ‘infrastructure’ for
making and implementing child rights policy in the form of an effective cooperation for children’s rights between the state and civil
society.
Pannonian
05-15-2017, 22:34
It is. Unequivocally.
Paris attacks = a few hundred. Iraq invasion = 1 million.
"Paris reaps whirlwind of western support for extremist violence in Middle East"
Stop the War Coalition, immediately following the Paris attacks in which 130 were killed (17th? November 2015)
Jeremy Corbyn attends Stop the War Coalition Christmas fundraiser, December 2015.
Jeremy Corbyn appoints former chair of the Stop the War Coalition to head the Labour party general election campaign, May 2017.
Did I mention that Andrew Murray was chief of staff of Len McCluskey, Corbyn's biggest union ally, who has promised to use his union's funds to pay for Momentum, Corbyn's personal support group? How much public money is Corbyn's group of friends distributing among themselves?
Greyblades
05-16-2017, 01:22
First of all, it's important to realize that the Kids Rights foundation is not affiliated with or a part of the United Nations I dont see how that matters considering I showed they base thier entire scoring system for the contested category on the United Nation's commentary. How closely they follow it may be up for debate but it is blatant they do not contribute thier own work to the result.
Secondly, any given office that may actually operate under the auspices of the UN are independent bureaucratic and technocratic agencies - whereas commission heads are elected by national representatives, typically on a rotating basis, with respect to the Women's Status Commission a secret ballot of 13 countries every four years. So your complaint just isn't relevant. Sir you are wrong, these convention members are elected not appointed through beuracracy (http://www.humanium.org/en/convention/committee/) and are equally vulnerable to political exploitation as the women's status commission.
Such an organization with such a history of cronyism cannot be trusted to assess a nation without bias.
As to the actual categories of assessment, you would find it difficult to argue against them if you read them. They are only broad and undefined inasmuch as you don't understand them:
Do not presume to deride my understanding when you yourself clearly have not comprehended my contentions:
Best interests of the child (Article 3) - The extent to which a country has operationalized the general principle of the best interests of the child. The best interests of children must be the primary concern in making decisions that may affect them. All adults should do what is best for children. When adults make decisions, they should think about how their decisions will affect children. This particularly applies to budget, policy and law makers, public or private welfare institutions, courts of law and administrative authorities. No definition or criteria for what counts as "best for a child" or how the comittee deduces such despite the term having as many differing definitions as there are people upon the earth.
Respect for the views of the child/child participation (Article 12) – The extent to which a country has operationalized the general principle of respect for the views of the child. When adults are making decisions that affect children, children have the right to say what they think should happen and have their opinions taken into account.
This does not mean that children can now tell their parents or others what to decide or do. The CRC encourages adults to listen to and seriously consider the opinions of children and to involve them in decision-making – but not to give children authority over adults. Article 12 does not interfere with the parental right and responsibility to direct and guide their child in exercising her/his rights or with the parental right to express their views on matters affecting their children.
Moreover, the Convention recognizes that the level of a child’s participation in decisions must be appropriate to the child’s level of maturity or evolving capacities. Children’s ability to form and express their opinions usually develops with age and most adults will naturally give the views of teenagers greater weight than those of a preschooler, whether in family, legal or administrative decisions. We are deemed under performing in "respecting the views of children", this is despite achieving a neutral closing statement in 2006 (page 16) (http://www.kidsrightsindex.org/Portals/5/The%20KidsRights%20Index%202017.pdf?ver=2017-05-11-124125-077) and there being no change in free speech laws in the interregnum, raising the question of what exactly did this comittee object to now that it didnt then.
You have not in any way addressed the key issue that I have with this, by which that our score can be affected due to, for whatever reason, the review by this comittee elicited something so utterly unquantifiable as a "negative concluding observations". No qualifier on what the content of these observations was or whether or not it's negativity is sourced from the comittees personal biases, merely operating on an assumption that because a comittee ended a review on what the Kids Rights Index interprited as a sour note an entire nation failed.
The information for domain 5 - ‘Child Rights Environment’ - derived from the qualitative Concluding Observations is scored on a scale between 1 and 3. The actual score assigned to each sub-indicator is exclusively based on the language used by the CRC Committee in the Concluding Observations. The resulting final scores have also been standardized.
http://www.kidsrightsindex.org/Portals/5/The%20KidsRights%20Index%202017.pdf?ver=2017-05-11-124125-077 - Page 3
There is no sound mind that would consider such results useful or even valid with such methodology making it's subsequent devaluing of the national scores of the United Kingdom and New Zealand exceedingly egregious and calls into question the very usefulness of this KidsRightsIndex.
Montmorency
05-16-2017, 02:45
I dont see how that matters considering I showed they base thier entire scoring system for the contested category on the United Nation's commentary.
Most of the data is reported by participating governments.
Sir you are wrong, these convention members are elected not appointed through beuracracy
I don't think you understand what you are referring to. As I said, convention members are member-states (through their representatives). Agencies and committees of the UN that perform investigative, statistical, or advocacy work are neither member states nor their representatives - they are mostly academic and bureaucratic staff. The link you post about the Committee on the Rights of the Child in fact says as much, suggesting you did not read it.
No definition or criteria for what counts as "best for a child" or how the comittee deduces such despite the term having as many differing definitions as there are people upon the earth.
The definitions are provided for in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The group providing the rankings explicitly describes the Convention as the basis for the rankings. That's the whole point.
We are deemed under performing in "respecting the views of children", this is despite achieving a neutral closing statement in 2006 (page 16) and there being no change in free speech laws in the interregnum, raising the question of what exactly did this comittee object to now that it didnt then.
Did you read my post explaining just this? From the report:
Disaggregated data, that is data collected on the situation of (particular groups of) children in a country, are important to be able to
drive decisions on the development of children´s rights. Better collection and analysis of the data can assist in realizing and protecting
the rights of all children as decisions can be taken on the specific needs of particular groups of children, based on for example income,
sex, age, race or ethnicity. As discussed previously, countries worldwide should do more to collected disaggregated data.
The (non-)availability of data remains influential. Of the twenty-seven countries that were subjected to CRC state reporting in 2016
thirteen countries realized the lowest possible score on the indicator collection and analysis of disaggregated data (indicating that
the CO contains only negative remarks on this aspect). These countries are Benin, Brunei Darussalam, France, Haiti, Ireland, Nauru,
Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Slovakia and the United Kingdom. The remaining countries realized an
‘average’ score (indicating a combination of positive and negative remarks in the latest Concluding Observations).
Only thirteen countries of the twenty-seven countries that were subjected to CRC state reporting in 2016 received a score on all seven
indicators. These countries are Haiti, Iran, Kenya, Latvia, Maldives, Nauru, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Slovakia
and South Africa. For the remaining countries at least one indicator was missing.
There were some new reporting standards in 2016 and the countries that did or could not meet them partly or fully for that year took a serious hit in the 5th domain of Enabling Environment.
Because the rankings work by a geometric mean rather than an arithmetic mean, the lowest score is highly-determinative of the aggregate score. Whether or nor reporting requirements were met is an objective standard, as is infant mortality rate or teen birth rate. As I said, the best case you could make here is that this skewing effect suggests the measures would better be taken on their own rather than ranked altogether through some aggregating means - or a better transformation for the aggregation than the geometric mean should be used.
It's really frustrating that your posts are consistently so ill-considered.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-16-2017, 13:31
I used to drink in there. I am too busy and have too many kids to get much of a chance to go out. And when I do, I seem to gravitate to the quay
I like the Prospect on the Quay. My sister is in Heavitree now too, and my parents are in Exmouth, so we sometimes go there for Sunday Lunch. The Bowling Green changed hands recently, still feeling out the new landlord.
I'm not one for resorting to violence. Especially not on the basis of having ideological differences.
Neither am I, but I don't envisage a black hole, either.
I'm from the south east.
Hampshire, Wales, Sweden, Surrey. So It's unlikely we're related.
Exeter is a funny mix. Much more recent immigration than much of the rest of the country. The large number of Chinese students seem to be the most notable new group.
The Chinese students are transient, the Middle Eastern, Polish and Romanian immigrants have had a bigger impact on the city.
Tory candidate for Exeter just knocked on the door. He used to live on the same street. He always seems like the lights are on but no one is really home.
Well, at least he's local.
Well, at least he's local.
Have you met him? I wouldn't put him in charge of a village jumble sale. He wasn't local when they gave him Cardiff West to have a stab at. Another tory barrister.
Seamus Fermanagh
05-16-2017, 16:09
Have you met him? I wouldn't put him in charge of a village jumble sale. He wasn't local when they gave him Cardiff West to have a stab at. Another tory barrister.
Did you talk with the fellow for a bit or just tell him to scarper off?
My daughter answered the door and called for me. As I walked towards the door and recognised his punchable lost puppy face I said "no, not a chance". He responded quizzically. "Never voting Tory" I elucidated and closed the door.
Gilrandir
05-16-2017, 16:54
Pray, independant, tell me what this actually means. What children's rights are being denied,
The right to be the EU citizens.
Seamus Fermanagh
05-16-2017, 17:50
My daughter answered the door and called for me. As I walked towards the door and recognised his punchable lost puppy face I said "no, not a chance". He responded quizzically. "Never voting Tory" I elucidated and closed the door.
Pity. I think you might make or break him as a valid politico with one good conversation. After all, if he could not represent himself well with you during a civil discussion, how much could he be said to be "bringing to the table?"
Pannonian
05-17-2017, 11:35
Pity. I think you might make or break him as a valid politico with one good conversation. After all, if he could not represent himself well with you during a civil discussion, how much could he be said to be "bringing to the table?"
I suppose Idaho could check out his CV to see what qualifications he has for such a job. Of course, that course of action would disqualify the Labour leadership team, so maybe that's not something Idaho believes in.
I suppose Idaho could check out his CV to see what qualifications he has for such a job. Of course, that course of action would disqualify the Labour leadership team, so maybe that's not something Idaho believes in.
Not really. To be fair, politicians CVs are a joke. They basically say 'went to boarding/private/grammar school's went to University (for PPE degree). Either became banker, lawyer or political~esque for a few years then go full time into politics. No real work experience.
If we wanted real leaders, we would have a lot more diversity from trained professionals with years of experience like Nurses, Police, Social work, etc.
Seamus Fermanagh
05-17-2017, 15:24
Not really. To be fair, politicians CVs are a joke. They basically say 'went to boarding/private/grammar school's went to University (for PPE degree). Either became banker, lawyer or political~esque for a few years then go full time into politics. No real work experience.
If we wanted real leaders, we would have a lot more diversity from trained professionals with years of experience like Nurses, Police, Social work, etc.
I agree, as did most of my nation's founders.
Modern politics has morphed from public service to a full-on career. Paying your dues etc. to the party apparatus means you'll be a decade or more before reaching office. I do not think that particular djinn will waft back into the bottle though -- we want our government to be doing things constantly and immediately, so like the 24-hour news cycle there is hardly a pause....but lots of repetition.
Governments are now trained to respond to the Greyblades and Fragonys of this world. They are the majority. They process everything in the context of the limited amount they know, and within the reference frame they already understand. No offence to those two...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-17-2017, 16:32
Not really. To be fair, politicians CVs are a joke. They basically say 'went to boarding/private/grammar school's went to University (for PPE degree). Either became banker, lawyer or political~esque for a few years then go full time into politics. No real work experience.
If we wanted real leaders, we would have a lot more diversity from trained professionals with years of experience like Nurses, Police, Social work, etc.
So like Boris Johnson (Historian, Journalist) or Liam Fox (GP)?
Corbyn, on the other hand, has only ever been a politician and union organiser - unions with no connection to his actual profession or skill set.
It should also be noted that PPE is DESIGNED to give someone the education necessary for political office, whereas a degree in nursing isn't. Which is not to say a nurse cannot be a politician, but being a nurse, policeman or a social worker is not really good preparation for high office.
Pannonian
05-17-2017, 17:03
Not really. To be fair, politicians CVs are a joke. They basically say 'went to boarding/private/grammar school's went to University (for PPE degree). Either became banker, lawyer or political~esque for a few years then go full time into politics. No real work experience.
If we wanted real leaders, we would have a lot more diversity from trained professionals with years of experience like Nurses, Police, Social work, etc.
In the first leadership contest, the other candidates were attacked for having previously held office or shadow office, unlike the entirely pure (because no-one's been stupid enough to trust him) Jeremy Corbyn. Yvette Cooper was one of the architects of Sure Start (a scheme to help mothers and children in their formative first few years). What has Corbyn done in his 40+ years of politics that is remotely comparable to Cooper?
During that infamous PMQs debacle previously mentioned, Cooper had one question to ask May, and she had the PM visibly flustered with that one question. Corbyn had six questions, and...well, May had the leisure to remind the highly paid with tax payers money Leader of HM Opposition that he was supposed to ask her questions, not ramble on without any noticeable point. 130k with accompanying pensions and benefits.
So like Boris Johnson (Historian, Journalist) or Liam Fox (GP)?
Boris was probably a bad example as he is similar to what I described. Liam Fox on the otherhand seems to not fit that mold.
It should also be noted that PPE is DESIGNED to give someone the education necessary for political office, whereas a degree in nursing isn't. Which is not to say a nurse cannot be a politician, but being a nurse, policeman or a social worker is not really good preparation for high office.
In terms of value base, the person with a degree in Nursing probably more likely to have empathy and cares about other people than those with more sociopathic tendencies which PPE course attracts. Which does make them more appealing in my opinion, since it is the civil servants who actually doing the running of government.
Pannonian
05-17-2017, 17:44
So like Boris Johnson (Historian, Journalist) or Liam Fox (GP)?
Boris was probably a bad example as he is similar to what I described. Liam Fox on the otherhand seems to not fit that mold.
In terms of value base, the person with a degree in Nursing probably more likely to have empathy and cares about other people than those with more sociopathic tendencies which PPE course attracts. Which does make them more appealing in my opinion, since it is the civil servants who actually doing the running of government.
Which is why I oppose an elected upper house. The upper house should consist of people with a long career outside politics.
Seamus Fermanagh
05-17-2017, 18:37
...They are the majority. They process everything in the context of the limited amount they know, and within the reference frame they already understand. No offence to those two...
When has this statement NOT been true?
Seamus Fermanagh
05-17-2017, 18:40
Which is why I oppose an elected upper house. The upper house should consist of people with a long career outside politics.
Wouldn't it be better staffed with Birthday Listers then, as opposed to the 97th Earl of Sniveling-Whinger & Paederium?
Pannonian
05-17-2017, 18:50
Wouldn't it be better staffed with Birthday Listers then, as opposed to the 97th Earl of Sniveling-Whinger & Paederium?
The inherited peers have been mostly phased out, with only a fraction of them able to take part, and only those who have been elected by their peers (and by definition the more motivated ones). They're mostly a vestige of tradition rather than anything significant. The Lords mostly consists of appointees who, unfortunately, are rejects and retirees from the Commons as well as the more useful kind. However, the Parliament Act ensures they can't do too much damage, so if we start appointing the last kind, we can afford to wait for the useless bunch to naturally die off.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-17-2017, 22:22
Boris was probably a bad example as he is similar to what I described. Liam Fox on the otherhand seems to not fit that mold.
Johnson received scholarships to Eton and Balliol - he read Classics not PPE and whilst his family were well to do he had a significant career as a Journalist before actually entering politics. Indeed, I first encountered him as editor of the Spectator when I was in college. Whilst he might not have been as well known had he not entered Parliament he would still be a significant public figure as a Journalist, Satirist and Classicist.
So, no, he's not really similar to what you described - he fits the bill of "experience outside politics".
In terms of value base, the person with a degree in Nursing probably more likely to have empathy and cares about other people than those with more sociopathic tendencies which PPE course attracts.
I'm sorry, what?
First off, empathy is not desirable as a dominant trait in a Politician, especially a government minister or Prime Minister. Politicians have to make hard choices, such as the choice to go to war, or the choice to allocate funds so that the least number of people lose their jobs - when that least is still measured in thousands.
Second off, only 1% of people are actually psychopaths and I don't believe that people who study PPE are significantly skewed towards psychopathy. Even if they were Psychopaths do not make successful politicians precisely because they have no empathy.
I think you're just prejudiced against the upper echelons of the political establishment. This is exactly like you saying my family enjoy seeing foxes suffer because we support hunting, because obviously we must enjoy seeing foxes suffer, there could be no other reason to support hunting.
Which does make them more appealing in my opinion, since it is the civil servants who actually doing the running of government.
Politicians make the hard decisions, as I said. You've played Total War - you presumably asked yourself questions like "should I attack this faction? Should I loot this city?". Those are extreme examples in a modern, Western, World with no real wars but questions such as this confronted British Politicians on a regular basis until about three-quarters of a century ago.
Pannonian
05-17-2017, 23:04
Has anyone else noted the circle of connections these people have, without any qualifications other than personal connections? The shadow chancellor (Labour's no.2) employs Corbyn's son as his chief of staff. Corbyn's biggest union ally promises to use his union's funds to pay for Corbyn's personal support group, Momentum. Corbyn employs said union ally's chief of staff as the head of his general election campaign. How much public money are they hiving off? Are Corbyn's supporters ok with all this?
Second off, only 1% of people are actually psychopaths and I don't believe that people who study PPE are significantly skewed towards psychopathy. Even if they were Psychopaths do not make successful politicians precisely because they have no empathy.
I didn't call people psychopaths (and diagnosis of psychopathy no longer exists). There was a difference between sociopath and psychopathy.
If you read what I said currently, I said "sociopathic traits" which means similar aspects.
For clarification, some of these traits are: Egocentricity, Lying for Personal Gain, Manipulative Behaviour, Lacking in Remorse. - ie: Your typical politician!
Before you don your red-coat and call the hounds, these are the same characteristics reproduced in TV drama and comedy, from Yes Minister, The New Statesman (Alan B'Stard), House of Cards, Black Adder, and so on. So it is not particularly unique, incredulous or 'mean spirited'.
As you liked to point out "it is less than 1% of population" , I am sure you are aware that for CEO's, the figure is approximately 20% for psychopathy ? It is because people with these traits thrive in hostile high-pressure environments, typically able to successfully stab you in the back (metaphorically) with a smile on your face.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-18-2017, 03:11
Has anyone else noted the circle of connections these people have, without any qualifications other than personal connections? The shadow chancellor (Labour's no.2) employs Corbyn's son as his chief of staff. Corbyn's biggest union ally promises to use his union's funds to pay for Corbyn's personal support group, Momentum. Corbyn employs said union ally's chief of staff as the head of his general election campaign. How much public money are they hiving off? Are Corbyn's supporters ok with all this?
Yes - but I think it's just Nepotism, not graft.
I didn't call people psychopaths (and diagnosis of psychopathy no longer exists). There was a difference between sociopath and psychopathy.
The diagnosis of Sociopath never existed, if you want to split hairs. Generally speaking, however, Sociopaths are usually conceived of as Psychopaths with a conscience.
If you read what I said currently, I said "sociopathic traits" which means similar aspects.
For clarification, some of these traits are: Egocentricity, Lying for Personal Gain, Manipulative Behaviour, Lacking in Remorse. - ie: Your typical politician!
Really - your typical politician?
No, I don't think so - most "big-name" Politicians have shown remorse. Cameron showed remorse when he lost the referendum. IDS has repeatedly showed remorse for the harm his cuts to benefits have caused, despite maintaining they were necessary. Blair is the only modern politician I can think of completely immune to remorse, or who has at least never shown it.
As far "Lying for Personal Gain", most politicians lie to avoid a media circus (see Tim Farron admitting to being a Christian and being hounded for two years about his views on Homosexuality) or to advance their political agenda. They do not consider this "personal gain". So that just leaves manipulation, which is again usually the result of the media circus, post politicians do actually keep their word - as they trade on it. You just have to listen to what they actually say. Egocentricity - maybe.
Having said that, you need egocentricity to believe YOU can run the country - it's one of the character flaws Corbyn definitely possesses.
Before you don your red-coat and call the hounds, these are the same characteristics reproduced in TV drama and comedy, from Yes Minister, The New Statesman (Alan B'Stard), House of Cards, Black Adder, and so on. So it is not particularly unique, incredulous or 'mean spirited'.
Are you actually, really, suggesting that I would hunt you down with dogs and have them tear you apart for holding what I consider an objectionable opinion?
As you liked to point out "it is less than 1% of population" , I am sure you are aware that for CEO's, the figure is approximately 20% for psychopathy ? It is because people with these traits thrive in hostile high-pressure environments, typically able to successfully stab you in the back (metaphorically) with a smile on your face.
You realise most of those CEO's fail at being CEO's, and unlike politicians all they have to do is backstab to clime the greasy pole, they don't have to build consensus among peers orwin elections. CEO's and Politicians are not the same kinds of people.
When has this statement NOT been true?
The post war consensus in the UK was built on politicians accepting and not challenging some basic tenets:
- a commitment to employment
- a national health service
- not stoking the fires of racism
- providing social care for pensioners and those in need.
Over the last few decades these commitments have got in the way of a clique of bankers and money market speculators making heaps of cash. These same people have aggressively taken control of the Tories, and indeed labour. They have defined themselves as the mainstream. 95%of money generated in "The City" (British shorthand for our "wall street" remains there. Yet much of our political decisions are based on keeping these people happy. When they crashed the global financial system and bankrupted the economy we bailed them out and repeated the mantra that it was all Gordon Brown's fault.
Now that the city hasn't proved to be our saviour and wealth inequality is getting more extreme, jobs are worse and social support more precarious, people are becoming more radical.
So what is the answer to this from these bankers? Pick up the race flag and get waving. Ukip was started by bankers claiming to be dispossessed normal folk fighting the establishment. The Tories are claiming to the party of the working class and promising worker representation on boards (straight from mussolini!).
Pannonian
05-18-2017, 14:37
Yes - but I think it's just Nepotism, not graft.
The diagnosis of Sociopath never existed, if you want to split hairs. Generally speaking, however, Sociopaths are usually conceived of as Psychopaths with a conscience.
Really - your typical politician?
No, I don't think so - most "big-name" Politicians have shown remorse. Cameron showed remorse when he lost the referendum. IDS has repeatedly showed remorse for the harm his cuts to benefits have caused, despite maintaining they were necessary. Blair is the only modern politician I can think of completely immune to remorse, or who has at least never shown it.
There's nothing for him to show remorse about. He genuinely believes in the neocon argument of spreading liberal democracy. In the same vein as your arguments for intervention in Syria (and Libya). If you think that intervening to topple dictatorships in Libya and Syria is the right thing to do, then the same applies to Iraq. Only if you think intervention is bad in and of itself, as I've always done, can you argue that you think Blair is in the wrong over Iraq. If you think that interventionism is a good thing, then Blair did as good a job as you could expect.
In any case, Blair has expressed some regrets over his time in power. You probably wouldn't agree with him on those, but he has expressed regrets.
IDS remorse? Is this the same IDS who suppressed the report that documented the deaths directly related to his policies?
The diagnosis of Sociopath never existed, if you want to split hairs. Generally speaking, however, Sociopaths are usually conceived of as Psychopaths with a conscience.
It is actually that psychopaths are unable to, via genes or birth defect (underdeveloped brain regions). With Sociopaths, it is a consequence of trauma/abuse causing stunted development. For example, the TV series Dexter, he is a sociopath and it started from a very traumatic memory of being trapped in a container with his dead mother, covered in her blood. tl;dr - Nature versus Nuture.
Never the less, it comes under the bracket of antisocial personality disorder.
Are you actually, really, suggesting that I would hunt you down with dogs and have them tear you apart for holding what I consider an objectionable opinion?0
I do have a sense of humour. It was in response to your mentioning of fox hunting.
(Which they do for fun, hence enjoy their suffering. If they didn't, they wouldn't do it. Like how I don't enjoy coffee, so I don't drink it, or repeatedly punch myself in the face.)
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-18-2017, 22:17
IDS remorse? Is this the same IDS who suppressed the report that documented the deaths directly related to his policies?
Yes, that one, after he left office.
Minister vs private person.
It is actually that psychopaths are unable to, via genes or birth defect (underdeveloped brain regions). With Sociopaths, it is a consequence of trauma/abuse causing stunted development. For example, the TV series Dexter, he is a sociopath and it started from a very traumatic memory of being trapped in a container with his dead mother, covered in her blood. tl;dr - Nature versus Nuture.
Never the less, it comes under the bracket of antisocial personality disorder.
Is this the "warrior gene" thing again?
There was a researcher who looked into this, in the course of his research he discovered he had the gene, but he also had a very happy childhood and loving family. So he doesn't register as a Psychopath, although he's not as empathetic
Lawrence Fishburne's character in CSI is partially based on him.
I do have a sense of humour. It was in response to your mentioning of fox hunting.
Ah, well, you see - I have no empathy.
(Which they do for fun, hence enjoy their suffering. If they didn't, they wouldn't do it. Like how I don't enjoy coffee, so I don't drink it, or repeatedly punch myself in the face.)
*Shrug*
I see you also lack empathy.
Most people who go hunting are simply not concerned with the suffering of the fox, it is not considered germane to the exercise. Enjoying hunting does not mean you enjoy the killing.
If we were discussing pigsticking then I might agree with you that the thrill is in the kill, but with field sports the thrill is in the chase.
How many huntsmen do you know, Beskar?
I've probably known at least a dozen and they all said more or less the same thing, viz. they enjoyed the chase and if the fox got away jolly good for him.
I see you also lack empathy.
Unfortunately it is the opposite in this case. It is why I care for the fox so much. But the fact the 'chase' is actively causing suffering, and the fox isn't a scoundrel for escaping.. it is a creature scared out of its wits fleeing for its very life.
If the hunters as you said don't care if it lives or dies, than you just thwarted your own argument of being a rural necessarily to keep numbers in check.
I don't particular want to know any huntsmen and they won't want to know me either as I would frankly tell them what I think about their 'thrill of the chase'. (I.e.: empathetic understanding they won't like it.)
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-18-2017, 23:26
Unfortunately it is the opposite in this case. It is why I care for the fox so much. But the fact the 'chase' is actively causing suffering, and the fox isn't a scoundrel for escaping.. it is a creature scared out of its wits fleeing for its very life.
You're projecting, not empathising. I get soppy over sheep, but I still eat lamb. I've also seen them killed, quickly and humanely, outside of an abattoir (which is neither) and it was still a tremendously sad thing to watch.
Aside from that, the point is that chasing the fox is not about causing him suffering. You might suggest huntsmen are callous for this, but it does not make them cruel. You need to try to empathise with the hunt supporters, because they are human beings.
If the hunters as you said don't care if it lives or dies, than you just thwarted your own argument of being a rural necessarily to keep numbers in check.
I did not say they don't care - I said that if the fox escapes it does not reduce the enjoyment of the chase.
I don't particular want to know any huntsmen and they won't want to know me either as I would frankly tell them what I think about their 'thrill of the chase'. (I.e.: empathetic understanding they won't like it.)
At least you admit your ignorance of the culture. Given that you are ignorant, however, you cannot reasonably claim to know how huntsmen feel about hunting, can you? So you are not qualified to say that they hate foxes, or enjoy their suffering.
Pannonian
05-19-2017, 01:37
You're projecting, not empathising. I get soppy over sheep, but I still eat lamb. I've also seen them killed, quickly and humanely, outside of an abattoir (which is neither) and it was still a tremendously sad thing to watch.
Aside from that, the point is that chasing the fox is not about causing him suffering. You might suggest huntsmen are callous for this, but it does not make them cruel. You need to try to empathise with the hunt supporters, because they are human beings.
I did not say they don't care - I said that if the fox escapes it does not reduce the enjoyment of the chase.
At least you admit your ignorance of the culture. Given that you are ignorant, however, you cannot reasonably claim to know how huntsmen feel about hunting, can you? So you are not qualified to say that they hate foxes, or enjoy their suffering.
If the thrill and the culture is the main point of the hunt, I'm not sure it has that much going for it. There are other things that used to be acceptable culture in the past, but are decidedly unfashionable nowadays. Such as war, which hunting was a surrogate for in the past. If the main point of hunting is thrill-seeking, then surely there are other ways of getting that thrill, without having to subject non-consenting partners to the risk of death. Other pastimes of this kind have been replaced by sport, which further abstracts the contest of war, and like the ideal war, only involves willing participants.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-19-2017, 02:04
I covered that in the past - if you have to kill something you might as well make a day of it and do it at a remove, with dogs, as shoot it in cold blood from the undergrowth.
That's my view, having had to participate in the killing of farm animals - bloody horrible, literally.
Pannonian
05-19-2017, 02:12
I covered that in the past - if you have to kill something you might as well make a day of it and do it at a remove, with dogs, as shoot it in cold blood from the undergrowth.
That's my view, having had to participate in the killing of farm animals - bloody horrible, literally.
Does killing foxes, particularly via the hunt, effectively protect livestock? I'm unfamiliar with the workings of the English countryside, but in other parts of the world, wild animals tend to keep away from humans, except for some that don't. Does the hunt actually kill the foxes that cause the trouble, or does it kill some foxes? At least shooting a fox from the undergrowth necessitates camping out in the location where the trouble is.
Interesting comments from an industry insider about the government proposals to make people sell their homes to pay for care. Amazingly it will be the city that benefits :
'People need to read the small print associated with this because its a lot nastier than it looks.
I work in the City. The insurance industry was approached by the Government several months ago with the aim of creating a new market for a new product.
This arrangement is a culmination of those discussions. You wont have to sell your house PROVIDED that you purchase an insurance product to cover your social care. The "premiums" would be recovered from the equity after the house has been sold and the Insurance company will have a lien on the house and can force a sale if it wants to. So your offspring cant keep it on the market for long in order to get the best price.
The real kicker in this is that in order to encourage the industry to market these products the government guaranteed that there would be no cap on the premiums.
This was in some ways "attonement" for Osborne's destruction of the highly lucrative annuties market. This means that the premiums could be up to (and including) the entire remaining equity in the property after the government has taken its cut. Compamies will be falling over themselves to get their snouts in this trough.
In short your offspring and relatives could get absolutely nothing from your estate.
If you buy one of these products you need to read the small print very very carefully indeed because there will be some real dogs on the market.
Pannonian
05-19-2017, 09:04
Source?
No source on that one. A friend of an insider. Could be bs, but is very consistent with the city and insurance industry I have seen so far in my personal and professional life.
With personal disposable incomes dropping, the city has no good line of income from liquid assets. Consequently they must have a stab at fixed assets - in this case houses.
Pannonian
05-19-2017, 14:39
No source on that one. A friend of an insider. Could be bs, but is very consistent with the city and insurance industry I have seen so far in my personal and professional life.
Googling turns up this on eastdevonwatch.
I have just seen this post online:
‘People need to read the small print associated with this because its a lot nastier than it looks.
I work in the City....
Is this another of these posts in the social media bubble that even Corbyn himself thinks is problematic? Except in this case you seem to have dressed it up as personal insider knowledge.
Sarmatian
05-19-2017, 14:43
Why are you trying to steer the discussion away from foxes and hounds? I wasn't this entertained about British policies regarding small wild animals since that episode of Yes, Minister with the beavers.
Googling turns up this on eastdevonwatch.
Is this another of these posts in the social media bubble that even Corbyn himself thinks is problematic? Except in this case you seem to have dressed it up as personal insider knowledge.
I didn't dress it up as personal knowledge. I presented it as plausible sounding hearsay.
So, the internet is on the agenda for being hitlisted by the Tories. If Corbyn said about restricting free speech and controlling the internet akin to North Korea and China, a few posters here wouldn't quiet down about Stalinism.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/theresa-may-internet-conservatives-government-a7744176.html
Greyblades
05-20-2017, 02:12
Most of the data is reported by participating governments.
...Did you not read what I said? They score based on a commentary's tone. There is no data, just the opinion of people.
I don't think you understand what you are referring to. As I said, convention members are member-states (through their representatives). Agencies and committees of the UN that perform investigative, statistical, or advocacy work are neither member states nor their representatives - they are mostly academic and bureaucratic staff. The link you post about the Committee on the Rights of the Child in fact says as much, suggesting you did not read it. Are you being intentionally naiive? They are selected by nations and voted in by nations, they are representatives whether the UN admits it or not and the UN's ability to avoid politically based and biased appointments is non existant.
They are used as political tools by nations to hit eachother with. Using their opinions for data is like using tabloids for news.
The definitions are provided for in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The group providing the rankings explicitly describes the Convention as the basis for the rankings. That's the whole point.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx
Article 3
1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
2. States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.
3. States Parties shall ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of safety, health, in the number and suitability of their staff, as well as competent supervision.
Read the entire thing if you want to, there is no fixed definition of "best interests of child".
Did you read my post explaining just this? From the report:
There were some new reporting standards in 2016 and the countries that did or could not meet them partly or fully for that year took a serious hit in the 5th domain of Enabling Environment. Did you not read my post explaining this?
http://www.kidsrightsindex.org/Portals/5/The%20KidsRights%20Index%202017.pdf?ver=2017-05-11-124125-077 page 16
United Kingdom 2008:
Non-discrimination - 2
Best interests of the child - 1
Respect for the views of the child -2
Enabling legislation -2
Best available budget -2
Collection and analysis of disaggregated data -N/A
State-civil society cooperation for child rights -3
United Kingdom 2016
Non-discrimination - 1
Best interests of the child - 1
Respect for the views of the child -1
Enabling legislation -1
Best available budget -1
Collection and analysis of disaggregated data - 1
State-civil society cooperation for child rights - N/A
This idea that you have that we took that great a hit for a N/A is utter crap; We were dropped to minimum in all catagories recorded, as was New Zealand, and we got a 0.01, Ireland had some better stats but got the same N/A yet they still got rated 0.4.
It's really frustrating that your posts are consistently so ill-considered.
Your lack of self awareness and your eagerness to project your own faults on others is an embarrassment.
Pannonian
05-20-2017, 03:28
When I linked to an extremely well-respected documentary on the Labour party's history, featuring just about everyone who was anyone (who was still alive), speaking on camera, thus providing both primary sources and unassailable attribution, Idaho dismissed it as:
Wow - argument from authority! Keep them coming.
Then Idaho gets quoted an unattributed post, probably on social media.
No source on that one. A friend of an insider. Could be bs, but is very consistent with the city and insurance industry I have seen so far in my personal and professional life.
I didn't dress it up as personal knowledge. I presented it as plausible sounding hearsay.
Hang on, here's some more. I posted a list of direct quotes, open letters and such from people who used to work with Corbyn, and here's Idaho's response.
This is called argument from authority. Usually a favourite rhetorical fallacy of American gun nuts and anti abortionists.
AE Bravo
05-20-2017, 04:08
Hunting disadvantaged creatures for reasons other than food is the coward's martial art. There should be no thrill in a chase unless you have delusions of grandeur. There's no athletic or moral integrity in pursuing an animal that doesn't know there is a game going on.
Do some hard sparring with a human, in a fair one, if you want to be honest with yourself.
Gilrandir
05-20-2017, 11:31
Hunting disadvantaged creatures for reasons other than food is the coward's martial art. There should be no thrill in a chase unless you have delusions of grandeur. There's no athletic or moral integrity in pursuing an animal that doesn't know there is a game going on.
You mean the hunted animal would feel better if it knew it was going to be eaten after all, and this chase is not for fun?
Whilst the Tories to call Corbyn a communist and stealing everyone's money.. or more the fact you earn over 80,000 you pay a tiny bit more tax in rates lower than Winston Churchill in the 1950s, the Tories pledge they will fix spending by removing food from starving primary school children instead!
Where is the backlash? Where is the Daily Mail putting on front page that Conservatives will be removing food from kids who don't get fed properly at home.. oh wait, they advertise to the middle classes who can afford to eat thus not eligible to the free food.
Pannonian
05-20-2017, 12:09
Whilst the Tories to call Corbyn a communist and stealing everyone's money.. or more the fact you earn over 80,000 you pay a tiny bit more tax in rates lower than Winston Churchill in the 1950s, the Tories pledge they will fix spending by removing food from starving primary school children instead!
Where is the backlash? Where is the Daily Mail putting on front page that Conservatives will be removing food from kids who don't get fed properly at home.. oh wait, they advertise to the middle classes who can afford to eat thus not eligible to the free food.
While Corbyn himself may not be a Communist, it's not that much of a stretch as he's sympathised with the USSR in the past and still sympathises with Russia, Cuba (he prioritised attending a Cuba rally over meeting with the Parliamentary party) and others in that bloc. His associates and staff are even less removed from the accusation of being Communists. His shadow chancellor and no.2 John McDonnell recently attended a rally and gave a speech with Baathist and USSR flags just above his head. His campaign chief was still a Communist party member in May last year, having been so for decades. His chief of staff was considered an extremist and a lapdog of the USSR by the leader of the Communist Party of Great Britain (there's something wrong when the head of the UK's Communist Party thinks you're too close to Soviet Russia). His shadow home secretary reckons Mao Zedong did more good than bad. So that's at least four of his close circle, who decide the direction of the Labour party (not the shadow cabinet as a whole, as we've seen from accounts of former shadow cabinet ministers), who reckon Communism is a good thing. I've seen videos from a conference where Corbyn introduced and spoke glowingly of Andrew Murray and Seumas Milne (two of the above) and George Galloway.
Is it that unfair to call Corbyn a Communist or accuse him of consorting with Communists?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-20-2017, 21:15
Does killing foxes, particularly via the hunt, effectively protect livestock? I'm unfamiliar with the workings of the English countryside, but in other parts of the world, wild animals tend to keep away from humans, except for some that don't. Does the hunt actually kill the foxes that cause the trouble, or does it kill some foxes? At least shooting a fox from the undergrowth necessitates camping out in the location where the trouble is.
Well, if we had no foxes the only predators for livestock would be badgers and curs - so killing foxes is certainly advantageous, so if fencing.
However, hunting with hounds is essentially predation against foxes. Without the hunt the fox essentially becomes the apex predator in most rural environments. Possibly they are challenged by badgers, but badgers have a different diet so they don't often directly conflict.
We were discussing this in work and one of my colleagues told me the Black Torrington hunt caught 300 foxes on Dartmoor one day. How, you ask? Well, they had all been dumped there by Liverpool City Council the day before, most were sick and dying from mange and other diseases.
Hounds find the weak, the stupid, the old and the reckless. For various reasons those are more likely to pose a threat to livestock. Eliminating them is positive for the fox population and encourages them to develop a fear of humans and dogs, which helps to keep them off farmland.
Hunting disadvantaged creatures for reasons other than food is the coward's martial art. There should be no thrill in a chase unless you have delusions of grandeur. There's no athletic or moral integrity in pursuing an animal that doesn't know there is a game going on.
Do some hard sparring with a human, in a fair one, if you want to be honest with yourself.
It's not a martial art. Unlike boar hunting fox and stag hunting have nothing really martial about them.
Whilst the Tories to call Corbyn a communist and stealing everyone's money.. or more the fact you earn over 80,000 you pay a tiny bit more tax in rates lower than Winston Churchill in the 1950s, the Tories pledge they will fix spending by removing food from starving primary school children instead!
Where is the backlash? Where is the Daily Mail putting on front page that Conservatives will be removing food from kids who don't get fed properly at home.. oh wait, they advertise to the middle classes who can afford to eat thus not eligible to the free food.
Excellent question.
Have you considered that it has to do with Corbyn and McDonnall's characters, and not their policies?
In any case,5% is not a "tiny bit more" in tax, it's a lot more in tax. Also, you'll note that Churchill paid less in indirect taxes, and the basic rate at the time was over 30%, not the 20% of today. If Corbyn committed himself to reducing VAT whilst increasing tax for higher earners then his plans would be better recieved. Anyway, these aren't even the most eye-watering changes, the worst one so far is the increase in Private Medical Insurrance Tax.
So - get this - you pay NI which pays for the NHS, then you buy private insurance so you don't use the NHS, then you pay AGAIN on that private insurance. Corbyn wants to hike that one by 8%, which will likely drive people back into the NHS, negating the benefit of them opting out but still paying NI.
Furunculus
05-21-2017, 10:45
Just like 2015, my facebook feed is filling up with likes and shares from the usual anti-tory bile.
One I'm particularly amused by is "Nobody likes a Tory".
Amused, because it is a significant part of why the left is going to lose the election: these people do not know how to communicate. By these people, i don't just mean the vendors of this social media bile or the parties they advocate (tho it applies to them too), but the people sharing this content!
When they share such aggressive and polarising content, they are not just attacking a party, they are attacking the values of people who find themselves attracted to that party's ideas. This is beyond polite disagreement, it is a public and visceral denigration of that person's perceived moral worth.
What does someone normally do when an acquaintence treats their values with contempt? I'm willing to bet they don't roll over and say; "Fair enough, I can see your point of view, and I've reconsidered my opinion in consequence. Thanks for taking the time, appreciated!" What matters is not that it happens here and there, rather, that up and down the land everyone's social media feed is filling up with this bile. What affect do they think this has?
I mention this not because i'm feeling particularly snowflake'y today, but in anticipation of the shock and despair on June 9th from those same people: "How did this happen, again? I don't know anyone who'd vote this way!"
Really?
Sarmatian
05-21-2017, 10:57
And at the same time, people who share stories like that on facebook aren't really representative of the labour voters.
In fact, most of the things shared and seen on facebook have precious little to do with anything happening out there in the real world. The entire logic of facebook is written in such a way to promote the most controversial and attention grabbing content.
Furunculus
05-21-2017, 11:35
what can be described as representative of typical labour voters?
it does lead people into the false assumption that their outrage is normal, and that everyone else is like them.
Elephantine
05-21-2017, 11:47
We were discussing this in work and one of my colleagues told me the Black Torrington hunt caught 300 foxes on Dartmoor one day. How, you ask? Well, they had all been dumped there by Liverpool City Council the day before, most were sick and dying from mange and other diseases.
Hounds find the weak, the stupid, the old and the reckless. For various reasons those are more likely to pose a threat to livestock. Eliminating them is positive for the fox population and encourages them to develop a fear of humans and dogs, which helps to keep them off farmland.
Well that is earth shattering revelation.
Since you appear rather concerned on animal welfare issues I do hope you reported this very illegal act to the relevant authorities.
Though on a moments reflection some questions are raised.
Is it just complete twaddle?
If someone has to give out such obvious fabrications to support their viewpoint on a subject does there viewpoint hold any real merit?
Lets just look at the basics. shooting urban foxes can net @50 a day, a trap may catch 20~30 in a year. So did those evil northerners have a very big collection of traps or did they store the captured foxes until they had enough to illegally ship them half way across the country?
Did they pack them all into the back of a lorry for the journey or would 300 individual cages have to be loaded?
How much would such an operation cost how long would it take and how would it be accounted for since it is illegal and would have to be kept off the books?
How did the Black Torrington hunt catch so many liverpudlian foxes in a single day?
Sorry, but if you just repeat clearly false stories you heard because you think they support your viewpoint then your viewpoint is obviously not well thought out.
Fox hunting serves one purpose , its fun. Well its fun if you like riding with few restrictions on where you can go , and its fun for the followers who like to watch people riding.
Other than that there is no logical arguement which can suppoprt it, it is a highly inefficient method to achieve what it claims it wants to achieve to achieve
Pannonian
05-21-2017, 11:48
what can be described as representative of typical labour voters?
it does lead people into the false assumption that their outrage is normal, and that everyone else is like them.
It's representative of Corbyn's supporters, so much so that it's actually official policy to concentrate on social media to build a social movement (as opposed to getting elected to Parliament, which Corbyn's faction despises). Ironically, even Corbyn himself has expressed doubts about the self-reinforcing nature of the social media bubble. Not that it's going to change his direction of course, as he's in his comfort zone there, and he's operated within his comfort zone for the whole of his career.
There are articles about the fragmentation of society due to the social media bubble, with specific reference to the Corbyn phenomenon.
Sarmatian
05-21-2017, 13:46
what can be described as representative of typical labour voters?
Certainly not facebook. I'm not going to go into details about typical labour voters, first and foremost because my knowledge of the subject is rather limited. I've written that not because I know labour voters, but because I know facebook.
it does lead people into the false assumption that their outrage is normal, and that everyone else is like them.
Very true. Also true for every other group, and it's a problem of modern times when media corporations worry about click-bait qualities of an article, rather than its validity, accuracy or comprehensiveness, and when social networks like facebook allow people to live in their own little bubbles which they share with their like minded individuals.
In fact, most of the things shared and seen on facebook have precious little to do with anything happening out there in the real world. The entire logic of facebook is written in such a way to promote the most controversial and attention grabbing content.
Yet Facebook is apparently causing what is happening out there to the real world to be like that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39830727
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-37945486
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-32590917
Pannonian
05-21-2017, 14:22
Yet Facebook is apparently causing what is happening out there to the real world to be like that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39830727
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-37945486
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-32590917
Trump is an example of post-truth politics. So is Corbyn. So was Brexit. I've described the salient features often enough, and pointed to where their supporters demonstrated them. There's an example above.
Gilrandir
05-21-2017, 15:22
Yet Facebook is apparently causing what is happening out there to the real world to be like that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39830727
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-37945486
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-32590917
So true:
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/05/10/how_russia_weaponized_social_media_in_crimea_111352.html
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-21-2017, 18:05
Well that is earth shattering revelation.
Since you appear rather concerned on animal welfare issues I do hope you reported this very illegal act to the relevant authorities.
This was some years ago before the ban, at the time it was entirely legal as the mangy foxes were being "re-homed"
[/quote]Though on a moments reflection some questions are raised.
Is it just complete twaddle?
If someone has to give out such obvious fabrications to support their viewpoint on a subject does there viewpoint hold any real merit?[/quote]
^This was unnecessary and it's going to make you look more foolish in but a moment.
Lets just look at the basics. shooting urban foxes can net @50 a day, a trap may catch 20~30 in a year. So did those evil northerners have a very big collection of traps or did they store the captured foxes until they had enough to illegally ship them half way across the country?
Did they pack them all into the back of a lorry for the journey or would 300 individual cages have to be loaded?
I've seen video of them being dumped out of the back of vans, half dead, and left by the side of the road. I think it was BBC Panarama but it was at least ten years ago and I can't find a video at the moment. as to where you get 300 from - I would assume they didn't all come from Liverppol, and also that this was a campaign to round them up, once rounded up they were probably held and just about fed until some bright spark hit on "re-homing" them. Perhaps it was not 300, perhaps it was 30, but even catching 30 foxes in a day is extra-ordinary for a hunt that would usually expect to catch two only if very lucky, and often simply none.
This isn't a story I got from someone who is pro-hunting, anyway.
How much would such an operation cost how long would it take and how would it be accounted for since it is illegal and would have to be kept off the books?
As I say, I believe this particular case was before the ban.
Having said that - here's some Cornish accounts, from just a few years ago: http://www.cornwalllive.com/urban-foxes-taken-city-dartmoor/story-11518012-detail/story.html
Here's a Torygraph link to the Parliamentary questions on this a few years back:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/8389526/City-foxes-are-being-dumped-dazed-and-helpless-on-farmland.html
Farmer shoots ten foxes after he loses 32 lambs:
http://metro.co.uk/2016/03/28/farmer-shot-dead-10-foxes-after-32-of-his-lambs-are-killed-5778656/
The loss of so many lambs on Exmoor to predators, and so many foxes letting themselves get shot is extra-ordinary.
And another account from Swindon: http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/10217313.Plea_as_urban_foxes_attack_Roves_farm_pets_after_being_left_in_woods/
How did the Black Torrington hunt catch so many liverpudlian foxes in a single day?
Presumably because the fell into the categories I mentioned earlier and were easily caught? As I said, I am relaying the story to you third hand, so the number may be inflated but that doesn't make it untrue.
Sorry, but if you just repeat clearly false stories you heard because you think they support your viewpoint then your viewpoint is obviously not well thought out.
Sure, no big cats released onto the Moors either... Nope, nothing ever escaped from Dartmoor Zoo!
Fox hunting serves one purpose , its fun. Well its fun if you like riding with few restrictions on where you can go , and its fun for the followers who like to watch people riding.
Other than that there is no logical arguement which can suppoprt it, it is a highly inefficient method to achieve what it claims it wants to achieve to achieve
Fox hunting aims to control the population - all other methods of "control" are actually culling or outright extermination.
While we're on the subject of Urban Myths, here's Chris Packham telling us foxes never attack humans.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134197/The-fox-attack-myth-BBC-man-Chris-Packham-says-doesnt-believe-people-attacked-animal.html
Here are two articles from the BBC about Urban foxes attacking babies.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10251349
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-21408288/baby-attacked-by-fox-recovering
Elephantine
05-21-2017, 18:13
Did you read the links you posted?
They do not support your claim.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-21-2017, 18:32
Did you read the links you posted?
They do not support your claim.
They don't support the claim foxes are being dumped from cities to the countryside?
Yes they do. They even support the fact it's happening in Devon, on Dartmoor.
Do they support the specific case I originally quoted as having been described to me by a friend? No, they do not.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-21-2017, 20:03
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39992892
Corbyn's connections to the IRA during the Troubles continue to haunt him. Whilst there's no suggestion he actively supported the Terrorism he is himself a Republican and campaigned for the "Troops Out" movement in the 1980's and for a "United Ireland"
Apparently Ulster Unionist (and former NI First Minister) Arlene Foster feels so strongly about this she is planning to attack Corbyn directly - which is highly unusual.
But in the end the Northern Ireland troubles were settled peacefully by "talking to terrorists", accepting "troops out" and making concessions to a "united Ireland".
But in the end the Northern Ireland troubles were settled peacefully by "talking to terrorists", accepting "troops out" and making concessions to a "united Ireland".
Shh, don't let facts come in the way of painting Corbyn as the anti-Christ.
Did you know his middle name is also Judas? Terrible. Burn him at the stake.
Seamus Fermanagh
05-21-2017, 21:37
But in the end the Northern Ireland troubles were settled peacefully by "talking to terrorists", accepting "troops out" and making concessions to a "united Ireland".
Which is how it creates a "win" for the terrorists. You must either pay the blood price to crush them OR, eventually, sit across the table from them.
Which is how it creates a "win" for the terrorists. You must either pay the blood price to crush them OR, eventually, sit across the table from them.
Maybe its because behind most political and terrorist causes, there are some reasonable motivations tucked away amongst the craziness.
Pannonian
05-21-2017, 22:36
"Does the Hon Gentleman accept that some of us oppose the agreement for reasons other than those that he has given? We believe that the agreement strengthens rather than weakens the border between the six and the 26 counties, and those of us who wish to see a United Ireland oppose the agreement for that reason."
Jeremy Corbyn, 27th November 1985, on the Anglo-Irish agreement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Agreement).
Source: Hansard. (http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1985/nov/27/anglo-irish-agreement#S6CV0087P0_19851127_HOC_294)
Corbyn lies, claims credit for work that others did (a habit of his), and his supporters perpetuate his lies.
Pannonian
05-21-2017, 23:16
Looking at the debate, I'm reminded once again of Orwell's observation that there are sections of the British Left who will always oppose violence, but only where it's perpetuated by Anglo-Americans. Where it's perpetuated by the USSR and its puppets, these supposed pacifists are curiously silent.
In that Commons debate, Corbyn says he supports a united Ireland, and says the problem lies with the barbarism of the British authorities. When you split down the 3000+ deaths in the Troubles, 10% were caused by the British authorities (which Corbyn condemns), while 58% were caused by republican terrorists (which Corbyn supports).
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-21-2017, 23:19
But in the end the Northern Ireland troubles were settled peacefully by "talking to terrorists", accepting "troops out" and making concessions to a "united Ireland".
Shh, don't let facts come in the way of painting Corbyn as the anti-Christ.
Did you know his middle name is also Judas? Terrible. Burn him at the stake.
"Does the Hon Gentleman accept that some of us oppose the agreement for reasons other than those that he has given? We believe that the agreement strengthens rather than weakens the border between the six and the 26 counties, and those of us who wish to see a United Ireland oppose the agreement for that reason."
Jeremy Corbyn, 27th November 1985, on the Anglo-Irish agreement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Agreement).
Source: Hansard. (http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1985/nov/27/anglo-irish-agreement#S6CV0087P0_19851127_HOC_294)
Corbyn lies, claims credit for work that others did (a habit of his), and his supporters perpetuate his lies.
It's more who exactly he was associating with and what his ultimate goal was. To me it looks as though Corbyn sees Northern Ireland as a relic of Imperialism, which is wronghead to say the least. Ireland is not analogous to our African, Asian or American colonies.
It's a sadly common position among self-hating Anglo's.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-21-2017, 23:22
Looking at the debate, I'm reminded once again of Orwell's observation that there are sections of the British Left who will always oppose violence, but only where it's perpetuated by Anglo-Americans. Where it's perpetuated by the USSR and its puppets, these supposed pacifists are curiously silent.
In that Commons debate, Corbyn says he supports a united Ireland, and says the problem lies with the barbarism of the British authorities. When you split down the 3000+ deaths in the Troubles, 10% were caused by the British authorities (which Corbyn condemns), while 58% were caused by republican terrorists (which Corbyn supports).
Someone should ask him if he condemns the murder of Lord Mountbatton.
Pannonian
05-21-2017, 23:24
It's more who exactly he was associating with and what his ultimate goal was. To me it looks as though Corbyn sees Northern Ireland as a relic of Imperialism, which is wronghead to say the least. Ireland is not analogous to our African, Asian or American colonies.
It's a sadly common position among self-hating Anglo's.
See Orwell's comment about British pacifists.
Pannonian
05-21-2017, 23:36
Someone should ask him if he condemns the murder of Lord Mountbatton.
I'd rather ask him what authority he had, as a no-name opposition backbencher, to talk to Republican terrorists to bring about peace. If he'd reached an agreement with them (and none has come to light), what concrete substance did it have, given his status as a political gnat.
Looking at the debate, I'm reminded once again of Orwell's observation that there are sections of the British Left who will always oppose violence, but only where it's perpetuated by Anglo-Americans. Where it's perpetuated by the USSR and its puppets, these supposed pacifists are curiously silent.
It is the same processes between why people stick up "Pray for Paris" but neglect to show support for the other countries experiencing atrocities and bombings. It is usually because of the locally held higher standards, and infringement on these, opposed to them lot over there who are barbarians who lack the same enlightenment so it doesn't matter because "Nothing we can do about it".
You don't see amnesty international doing big campaigns due to inappropriate internment in North Korea due to the same mental logic that "well, nothing we can do in that crackpot country, lets highlight countries such as the USA for their misconduct". Though to be far, they do general coverage on countries like North Korea, Syria, etc but with despots, it is a case of "You have no power here!".
It is part of a more complex phenomena.
Pannonian
05-22-2017, 00:15
It is the same processes between why people stick up "Pray for Paris" but neglect to show support for the other countries experiencing atrocities and bombings. It is usually because of the locally held higher standards, and infringement on these, opposed to them lot over there who are barbarians who lack the same enlightenment so it doesn't matter because "Nothing we can do about it".
You don't see amnesty international doing big campaigns due to inappropriate internment in North Korea due to the same mental logic that "well, nothing we can do in that crackpot country, lets highlight countries such as the USA for their misconduct". Though to be far, they do general coverage on countries like North Korea, Syria, etc but with despots, it is a case of "You have no power here!".
It is part of a more complex phenomena.
Do these people with peace stickers try to claim credit for helping to bring about world peace, as Corbyn and McDonnell are doing with Northern Ireland? I recommend anyone trying to further peddle Corbyn's lies read his comments from the Commons debate. There's no MSM twisting or bias there. Just Corbyn's actual words.
Oh, and FYI, John Hume was the guy who brought Sinn Fein to the table. Not Jeremy Corbyn, who was a nobody. Corbyn's trying to whitewash his dodgy record by claiming credit, and his fans eagerly repeat the crap he's pushing.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-22-2017, 00:20
I'd rather ask him what authority he had, as a no-name opposition backbencher, to talk to Republican terrorists to bring about peace. If he'd reached an agreement with them (and none has come to light), what concrete substance did it have, given his status as a political gnat.
Bo, no. I think my question would induce more squirming.
No arguments from me. I would have preferred someone else to be leading to Labour party. Though I have to agree with some of his fans that the media can be unfairly biased against him, but then again, look at the reporting of Ed Miliband eating a bacon sandwich to see how rubbish they are. What is the biggest shame is that Labour have a few good policies I would love to see better credence given to and there is the saying 'dont throw the baby out with the bathwater' should be resaid as 'dont get rid of the water as you throw out the Corbyn'.
Random note in terms of well-being and happiness, the wage for happiness is £47,000. Above this amount, the money does not make you anymore happier overall as this is the sweet point where you income covers all your necessities and luxery. So for example, if you compare the difference of £18,000 to someone on £50,000 there is a significant difference, but not between £50,000 and £100,000. (Might be more expensive holiday, but they are both having holidays compared to not having one)
Good for them if they have more, I'm not one of them but couldn'tcare less. Who knows, maybe he gets terminal cancerand everything is equal again and money means nothing
Seamus Fermanagh
05-22-2017, 16:58
Maybe its because behind most political and terrorist causes, there are some reasonable motivations tucked away amongst the craziness.
Likely true in the large majority of instances. Rarely is any human being motivated by some cause that is purely and clearly "evil." Even then, from their perspective, it is likely being viewed as some kind of "necessary evil" as were the shooting of Belgian civilians in War One or the bombing of Dresden in War Two. Is that simply rationalization? Perhaps. But the human mind is a complex thing and the logic of decisions is not necessarily rational in any conventional sense nor will it conform always to Occam's standard.
https://i.imgur.com/tULGQXG.png
Pannonian
05-22-2017, 17:43
You know what the Tory strategy will be from here until election time? They're just going on hammer on about Corbyn and the prospect of him as PM. Everything will be largely irrelevant compared with that salient point; electing Labour means Corbyn as PM.
You know what the Tory strategy will be from here until election time? They're just going on hammer on about Corbyn and the prospect of him as PM. Everything will be largely irrelevant compared with that salient point; electing Labour means Corbyn as PM.
Corbyn is not going to win, don't need to be a pollster to know that. If Corbyn is able to maintain (or even gain seats), it would be a boon, but he won't be winning this election.
Pannonian
05-22-2017, 18:07
Corbyn is not going to win, don't need to be a pollster to know that. If Corbyn is able to maintain (or even gain seats), it would be a boon, but he won't be winning this election.
Against probably the most incompetent government in my lifetime. Blair circa 1997 would run up a 200 seat majority against the bunch of numpties that is the current Tory front bench. Yet their incompetence pales in comparison with Corbyn's front bench, including a shadow home secretary who can't even keep track of what she's said in an interview (and that's even disregarding her costing of policies that mean £300 buys a police officer).
Sarmatian
05-22-2017, 20:38
I get it that you don't like Corbyn, and you may very well be completely right about him, but you certainly know that there are a number of reasons why labour has lost seats.
On the subject of the IRA. There is actually a serving Conservative who was a member of it during the 1970s.
Maria Gatland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Gatland)
She was accepted back into the fold after initially being suspended.
Are the Conservatives simply trying to point score on Corbyn whilst practising a policy of amnesty for their own?
Pannonian
05-22-2017, 21:01
I get it that you don't like Corbyn, and you may very well be completely right about him, but you certainly know that there are a number of reasons why labour has lost seats.
According to constituency canvassers, the most frequent reason canvassees gave for not supporting Labour is Corbyn. Note these set ups have detailed databases of canvassees and their previous record.
FYI, during the Copeland campaign (which they lost after having held it and its predecessor seat for 80+ years), one canvassee noted Corbyn and his IRA connections as why they wouldn't be voting Labour in the by-election.
Pannonian
05-22-2017, 21:05
On the subject of the IRA. There is actually a serving Conservative who was a member of it during the 1970s.
Maria Gatland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Gatland)
She was accepted back into the fold after initially being suspended.
Are the Conservatives simply trying to point score on Corbyn whilst practising a policy of amnesty for their own?
You've just got this from your Facebook friends? AFAIK Maria Gatland isn't in the running to become PM of the UK. Labour and whoever in the UK had heard of him were quite accepting of Corbyn's views when he was still a backbencher. Not so much in a GE when he's leader of the opposition.
BTW, are you going to back up his claims about contributing to the eventual peace, after having read through that Commons debate I linked to and quoted from? You have read through it, haven't you?
Sarmatian
05-22-2017, 22:21
According to constituency canvassers, the most frequent reason canvassees gave for not supporting Labour is Corbyn. Note these set ups have detailed databases of canvassees and their previous record.
FYI, during the Copeland campaign (which they lost after having held it and its predecessor seat for 80+ years), one canvassee noted Corbyn and his IRA connections as why they wouldn't be voting Labour in the by-election.
I would very much like to see a report. Where was it conducted, did it target only labour voters, how was the question phrased etc... That can have a huge influence on the answer. If a tory voter answers that the prime reason for not voting labour is Corbyn, it might mean Corbyn is actually doing his job right.
Pannonian
05-22-2017, 22:41
I would very much like to see a report. Where was it conducted, did it target only labour voters, how was the question phrased etc... That can have a huge influence on the answer. If a tory voter answers that the prime reason for not voting labour is Corbyn, it might mean Corbyn is actually doing his job right.
You're not thinking FPTP. Swing voters count double, as they're taken away from Labour, and added to the Tories. If someone decides not to vote Labour because of Corbyn, and votes Tory instead, then it's doubly damaging. As for these reports; I haven't seen them myself, only heard of them. However, one general study of Labour's situation noted that presumedly Labour safe seats are in danger because the canvassing set ups there have been neglected, and you have Tory canvassers out there but no Labour canvassing set up. From that, you can work out that these databases are concentrated in competitive seats or targeted seats, and what kind of information is in them. What I do know is that canvassees are divided into categories, depending on how red or blue they are. If you've read Terry Pratchett's Nigh Watch, then the scene at the party where Lady Meserole turns the guests red is a good description of the process.
Sinn Féin Ireland President Gerry Adams TD defends the Labour leader’s record on the IRA.
He said his comments show Mr Corbyn is "on the right side of history", adding: "What he did was very modest, what he did was very fundamental. “He recognised the rights of the people who voted for Sinn Fein and I think he was vindicated by subsequent events. “Because where he led – others followed.”. -
Pannonian
05-23-2017, 00:25
Sinn Féin Ireland President Gerry Adams TD defends the Labour leader’s record on the IRA.
"Where he led"? Before the 2015 leadership election, who'd heard of Jeremy Corbyn? I've seen accounts of people who were in SWP circles in the 1980s, and they were looking forward to the likes of Tony Benn and Arthur Scargill. Not support acts like Corbyn.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-23-2017, 02:03
On the subject of the IRA. There is actually a serving Conservative who was a member of it during the 1970s.
Maria Gatland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Gatland)
She was accepted back into the fold after initially being suspended.
Are the Conservatives simply trying to point score on Corbyn whilst practising a policy of amnesty for their own?
Young woman joins IRA as idealist, leaves when she realises it's about killing innocent people. Hardly edifying, but unlike her Corbyn is claiming credit for the peace process, and unlike her he seems to think IRA activities, including bombings and murders, were justified.
Sinn Féin Ireland President Gerry Adams TD defends the Labour leader’s record on the IRA.
Gerry Adamas is an important man to the IRA and Sien Fein, he isn't all that important a man in Northern Ireland - it was McGuiness, not Adams, who led the party towards political engagement with Unionists, and ultimately peace.
Adams, meanwhile, denies ever being a member of the IRA.
He also said it was perfectly fine to murder the retired Lord Mountbatton whilst on holiday with his grandchildren. He feels Mountbatton would have done the same.
How come strident right wing bollocks is so prevalent, so self defeating and so comprehensively shown to have been wrong in retrospect - and yet persists long after the event?
This daily mail headline rhetoric about only spouting "no surrender" and other nonsense. Grow up. Talk to anyone. Peace comes through negotiations. This gets proved again and again. Sadly only after long, pointless and bloody wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, ulster). And then the lesson gets forgotten! Back to the standard script "no surrender!" :facepalm:
Pannonian
05-23-2017, 11:15
How come strident right wing bollocks is so prevalent, so self defeating and so comprehensively shown to have been wrong in retrospect - and yet persists long after the event?
This daily mail headline rhetoric about only spouting "no surrender" and other nonsense. Grow up. Talk to anyone. Peace comes through negotiations. This gets proved again and again. Sadly only after long, pointless and bloody wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, ulster). And then the lesson gets forgotten! Back to the standard script "no surrender!" :facepalm:
Actually, in the IRA's case, peace came because the British had thoroughly infiltrated the IRA and rendered coordinated campaigns impossible. The conditions that they eventually arrived at, they could have got in the 1980s had they stopped then. Self determination for the people of Northern Ireland, self government for the people of Northern Ireland. Read the Commons debate I quoted from.
So you are saying that the British state won and only gave concessions to the republican side as an act of beneficence?
Pannonian
05-23-2017, 14:14
So you are saying that the British state won and only gave concessions to the republican side as an act of beneficence?
Effectively. On the salient points, the British state hadn't budged from the 1980s: self determination, self government. When PIRA found they could no longer effectively function, they needed a way out, and the British and Irish governments offered them the face saving they needed.
Probably the one thing that did change since the 1980s that substantially made this possible was the greater intertwining of the British and Irish economies. With the free movement of peoples and greater prosperity they'd got used to, economically the UK and Ireland became almost a joined state, with the prospect of further good things to come. With that prospect in their sights, neither the British nor the Irish state saw any point in upsetting the applecart for the sake of irredentism.
With that in mind, I refer you back to Corbyn's comments in that Commons debate, on the agreement that started that process.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-23-2017, 15:11
So you are saying that the British state won and only gave concessions to the republican side as an act of beneficence?
I'm not sure they even really gave them any concessions - the sectarian prejudice in NI and the lack of Civil Rights for Catholics was an acknowledged problem in the 1970's. I would say that, politically, the IRA's campaign achieved nothing that could not have been achieved much sooner through peaceful protest.
Pannonian
05-23-2017, 15:17
I'm not sure they even really gave them any concessions - the sectarian prejudice in NI and the lack of Civil Rights for Catholics was an acknowledged problem in the 1970's. I would say that, politically, the IRA's campaign achieved nothing that could not have been achieved much sooner through peaceful protest.
Or flagging up the problem to Westminster, making it clear it was unjust and unacceptable, and working with them to address the problem. Outside the armed struggle, Westminster's problem with Northern Ireland politics has been the reactionism of the Unionist side. If couched in liberal ideals rather than republican terms, the British government would happily take their side on civil rights and giving all Northern Irish, Catholics included, the same rights as enjoyed by any other British citizen.
Montmorency
05-23-2017, 15:44
Or flagging up the problem to Westminster, making it clear it was unjust and unacceptable, and working with them to address the problem. Outside the armed struggle, Westminster's problem with Northern Ireland politics has been the reactionism of the Unionist side. If couched in liberal ideals rather than republican terms, the British government would happily take their side on civil rights and giving all Northern Irish, Catholics included, the same rights as enjoyed by any other British citizen.
To what extent was the issue substantive inequality over specific rights?
Pannonian
05-23-2017, 16:13
To what extent was the issue substantive inequality over specific rights?
Goodness knows. But the solution was to tell the devolved Northern Ireland government to grow up and deal with things themselves, within the parameters of general British decency, with a healthy subsidy as an incentive. Whatever problems they have locally, Britain don't really want to care about, except that there shouldn't be any discrimination (as that falls within the realms of British decency). Before he stepped down, Martin McGuinness (the head man in the IRA before they ended their campaign) said that he preferred direct government by Westminster to the DUP-led Stormont government. That's Sinn Fein wanting the British government to be more involved than the British government want to be.
I think chance of Theresa May getting a larger majority just rose significantly. People will be more conscious for a 'Strong and Stable' message.
Pannonian
05-23-2017, 19:00
I think chance of Theresa May getting a larger majority just rose significantly. People will be more conscious for a 'Strong and Stable' message.
Corbyn's history was known when he was elected in 2015. Labour can have no complaints about his image on that front being detrimental to the party's electoral chances. You vote for Corbyn, you get Corbyn.
Unfortunately, some papers cannot keep the tone civil.
https://i.imgur.com/2gTdryo.jpg
Seamus Fermanagh
05-23-2017, 19:11
I think chance of Theresa May getting a larger majority just rose significantly. People will be more conscious for a 'Strong and Stable' message.
Hmmmm, conservative political philosophies benefitting from a public sentiment that they have been attacked....
Beskie, I must agree with you but this level of analysis will NOT get you that NASA gig. :creep:
Pannonian
05-23-2017, 19:20
Unfortunately, some papers cannot keep the tone civil.
Why are you surprised? I saw this coming in 2015. I said at the time that he was toxic to the British people, and would turn the Labour party toxic by association. All the Tories needed to do to win re-election was point at Corbyn and say, look, he's the Labour leader. The Labour members elected and re-elected him regardless of this extremely obvious attack line. They can have no complaints about the Tory press doing what the Tory press can be expected to do. After all, they were no less harsh on Owen Smith last year, so complaints about a harsh reception and unfairness stinks of hypocrisy.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-23-2017, 21:12
To what extent was the issue substantive inequality over specific rights?
Goodness knows. But the solution was to tell the devolved Northern Ireland government to grow up and deal with things themselves, within the parameters of general British decency, with a healthy subsidy as an incentive. Whatever problems they have locally, Britain don't really want to care about, except that there shouldn't be any discrimination (as that falls within the realms of British decency). Before he stepped down, Martin McGuinness (the head man in the IRA before they ended their campaign) said that he preferred direct government by Westminster to the DUP-led Stormont government. That's Sinn Fein wanting the British government to be more involved than the British government want to be.
There were endemic problems, including deliberately gerrymandered constituencies designed to prevent Republicans or Catholics every gaining seats - irrc there were no Catholic ministers until 1972, a year before the NI Parliament was abolished.
Unfortunately, some papers cannot keep the tone civil.
https://i.imgur.com/2gTdryo.jpg
Last week Theresa May was accused of stealing food from children.
Sean O'Callaghan says Corbyn has "blood on his hands" because he encouraged the IRA.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-23-2017, 22:02
@Beskar (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?u=32704)
19667
Jeremy Corbyn to blame terrorist attacks such as Manchester bombing on UK foreign policy
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-manchester-attack-terrorism-uk-foreign-policy-wars-speech-a7756266.html
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-26-2017, 00:48
Yes, of course, because it's the fault of the victims.
Pannonian
05-26-2017, 00:53
Jeremy Corbyn to blame terrorist attacks such as Manchester bombing on UK foreign policy
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-manchester-attack-terrorism-uk-foreign-policy-wars-speech-a7756266.html
He can't help himself, can he. Abedi's family fled Qaddafi. Abedi's family were able to return to Libya because UK foreign policy had removed Qaddafi. Abedi then bombs and kills children in the UK. And the Stop the War Coalition chairman, with a sideline in leading the Labour party, blames UK foreign policy for this arsehole deciding that kids were a fair target. I bet Corbyn's predecessor as chairman of the StWC, now his campaign chief, is proud of his boss.
Corbyn is doing all he can to turn the UK into a one party state.
Sarmatian
05-26-2017, 06:34
It doesn't have to be true in every single case. You had a Charleston church shooting because someone felt that white males were oppressed in America. Or the mass shooting in Norway...
Terrorism is connected with a political goal, even if that goal isn't always the same or even rational.
Also, blaming the UK foreign policy is not blaming the victims. There's no equivalence there.
Also, blaming the UK foreign policy is not blaming the victims. There's no equivalence there.
The problem is that the UK foreign policy is absolutely blameless and was never wrong. And if it ever was undeniably "wrong", it doesn't count because they ended all slavery worldwide for ever!
Take the Zulus for example, they were terrible slackers who were too lazy to invent gunpowder and got slaughtered by the British in return, who were just defending their country.
British foreign policy is (and always has been) the height of enlightenment and more altruistic than Mother Theresa. Only a terrorist would ever disagree with that.
Pannonian
05-26-2017, 12:27
The problem is that the UK foreign policy is absolutely blameless and was never wrong. And if it ever was undeniably "wrong", it doesn't count because they ended all slavery worldwide for ever!
Take the Zulus for example, they were terrible slackers who were too lazy to invent gunpowder and got slaughtered by the British in return, who were just defending their country.
British foreign policy is (and always has been) the height of enlightenment and more altruistic than Mother Theresa. Only a terrorist would ever disagree with that.
How typical. Someone whose family the UK has helped for decades, who was brought up here like any other Briton, decides to bomb children. And Husar is right here blaming the UK for this. The lesson we can draw from this is the conclusion I've come to. We should stop taking in immigrants from Muslim countries, even those who claim refuge (as Abedi's parents did). Even if we do all we can for them, they'll still end up against us, and we'll still be blamed for their actions by anti-Anglo ideologues. Rather than try to explain how it came to this end, let's just not make a start in the first place. Let Germany take them all.
Greyblades
05-26-2017, 12:47
Husar the zulu had migrated into the area from east africa and rose to dominance by exterminating the surrounding tribes, killing thier men raping their women and enslaving thier children. Thier ascendance set into motion a mass migration of fleeing tribes that resulted in a major depopulation of the surrounding region killing 2 million people.
Did this history make the zulu state deserving of their subjugation?
How typical. Someone whose family the UK has helped for decades, who was brought up here like any other Briton, decides to bomb children. And Husar is right here blaming the UK for this.
I was only blaming you (English nationalists) in my post, but just to make you happy, here you go:
Husar the zulu had migrated into the area from east africa and rose to dominance by exterminating the surrounding tribes, killing thier men raping their women and enslaving thier children. Thier ascendance set into motion a mass migration of fleeing tribes that resulted in a major depopulation of the surrounding region killing 2 million people.
Did this history make the zulu state deserving of their subjugation?
So two wrongs make a right now in the UK.
In which case the wrong terrorism just rights your wrong foreign policy.
The yin and yang are perfectly balanced, nothing to see here.
The lesson we can draw from this is the conclusion I've come to. We should stop taking in immigrants from Muslim countries, even those who claim refuge (as Abedi's parents did). Even if we do all we can for them, they'll still end up against us, and we'll still be blamed for their actions by anti-Anglo ideologues. Rather than try to explain how it came to this end, let's just not make a start in the first place. Let Germany take them all.
How typical. Looks like you finally came around to the pro-Brexit side, glad I could help.
Or perhaps you're trying to fight ideological wars with bombs and bombs aren't ideological weapons.
Surely they're being used by ideologues, but you can't bomb ideologies. Even the terrorists can't. The right always responds like you do and the left always replies with "we need more peace and love!".
To get such a ban as you propose, you have to fight the same ideologies and/or establish a dictatorship, so good luck with that. You could start by bombing those who oppose the new legislation until they agree with you.
Pannonian
05-26-2017, 13:52
I was only blaming you (English nationalists) in my post, but just to make you happy, here you go:
So two wrongs make a right now in the UK.
In which case the wrong terrorism just rights your wrong foreign policy.
The yin and yang are perfectly balanced, nothing to see here.
Just a reminder. When I was saying that Britain should mind its own business and withdraw from all engagements with the middle east, you were the one arguing for more engagement. I would gladly accede to this terrorist's wishes and have absolutely nothing to do with Muslim countries, except where necessary to trade for resources.
How typical. Looks like you finally came around to the pro-Brexit side, glad I could help.
Or perhaps you're trying to fight ideological wars with bombs and bombs aren't ideological weapons.
Surely they're being used by ideologues, but you can't bomb ideologies. Even the terrorists can't. The right always responds like you do and the left always replies with "we need more peace and love!".
To get such a ban as you propose, you have to fight the same ideologies and/or establish a dictatorship, so good luck with that. You could start by bombing those who oppose the new legislation until they agree with you.
I see no point in fighting an ideological war with bombs and bullets, or with ideology. I see no point in fighting the war at all, or engaging with these barbarians in any way beyond what is necessary. I think their ideology is barbaric, but they're free to have it in their own country. They use the argument of self determination (despite your trying to weasel out of that principle when I pressed you on it), but their claim is reciprocal. They want us out of their country, the reciprocation is that they should get out of our country. Since we can't get them out due to international laws, we should keep them out instead, which is within our rights as a state.
How typical. Someone whose family the UK has helped for decades, who was brought up here like any other Briton, decides to bomb children. And Husar is right here blaming the UK for this. The lesson we can draw from this is the conclusion I've come to. We should stop taking in immigrants from Muslim countries, even those who claim refuge (as Abedi's parents did). Even if we do all we can for them, they'll still end up against us, and we'll still be blamed for their actions by anti-Anglo ideologues. Rather than try to explain how it came to this end, let's just not make a start in the first place. Let Germany take them all.
You are InsaneApache from 30 years ago. About to make that leap from labour to hard right.
Pannonian
05-26-2017, 14:07
You are InsaneApache from 30 years ago. About to make that leap from labour to hard right.
I'd like to hear your solution to the problem. Or indeed your definition of the problem.
Just a reminder. When I was saying that Britain should mind its own business and withdraw from all engagements with the middle east, you were the one arguing for more engagement. I would gladly accede to this terrorist's wishes and have absolutely nothing to do with Muslim countries, except where necessary to trade for resources.
The trade for resources is the part that basically shatters your argument entirely. What if they decide to trade the resources with Russia or China instead because they sell them arms in return? You just say okay, stop using your car?
I see no point in fighting an ideological war with bombs and bullets, or with ideology. I see no point in fighting the war at all, or engaging with these barbarians in any way beyond what is necessary. I think their ideology is barbaric, but they're free to have it in their own country. They use the argument of self determination (despite your trying to weasel out of that principle when I pressed you on it), but their claim is reciprocal. They want us out of their country, the reciprocation is that they should get out of our country. Since we can't get them out due to international laws, we should keep them out instead, which is within our rights as a state.
Why should they get out of your country if they want self determination? Does the UK not allow people from the US in because they used violence to get self determination? Does a country have to basically be a UK colony for the citizens to be allowed into the country?
Pannonian
05-26-2017, 14:30
The trade for resources is the part that basically shatters your argument entirely. What if they decide to trade the resources with Russia or China instead because they sell them arms in return? You just say okay, stop using your car?
That's their right to do so. I respect their right to do so. Unlike you, I respect the principle of self determination.
Why should they get out of your country if they want self determination? Does the UK not allow people from the US in because they used violence to get self determination? Does a country have to basically be a UK colony for the citizens to be allowed into the country?
What right does anyone from outside the UK have to enter the UK? It's a privilege, and we can allow it to whoever we like, and withhold it from whoever we like. At least what I suggest doesn't involve violence, unlike what these arseholes are inflicting on us. If they want us to respect their self determination, they should reciprocally respect our self determination. Or is it a one way thing, in that people are allowed to do whatever they want to us, but we're expected to soak up whatever they hand us? I suspect it's the latter for you, since we're Britain and thus automatically the punchbag for the high horse moralists of this world.
Greyblades
05-26-2017, 14:30
So two wrongs make a right now in the UK.
In which case the wrong terrorism just rights your wrong foreign policy. Im not sure if I should be annoyed you ruined my set up or happy you understand my point.
Just as the Zulu's actions doesnt nullify the wrongs of the british invasion, the iraq war doesnt make right of this terrorist attack.
Montmorency
05-26-2017, 14:34
That's their right to do so. I respect their right to do so. Unlike you, I respect the principle of self determination.
What right does anyone from outside the UK have to enter the UK? It's a privilege, and we can allow it to whoever we like, and withhold it from whoever we like. At least what I suggest doesn't involve violence, unlike what these arseholes are inflicting on us. If they want us to respect their self determination, they should reciprocally respect our self determination. Or is it a one way thing, in that people are allowed to do whatever they want to us, but we're expected to soak up whatever they hand us? I suspect it's the latter for you, since we're Britain and thus automatically the punchbag for the high horse moralists of this world.
Aside from conflating individuals with countries, you fail to realize that there is no such thing as mutual self-determination, because self-determination necessitates conflict - therefore we have compromise in society.
Should the UK and the United States have respected Nazi German self-determination in the continent as long as they kept the peace with Anglophone countries?
Gilrandir
05-26-2017, 14:42
Should the UK and the United States have respected Nazi German self-determination in the continent as long as they kept the peace with Anglophone countries?
They have tried hard to respect it for the most part of the 1930s.
Pannonian
05-26-2017, 14:46
Aside from conflating individuals with countries, you fail to realize that there is no such thing as mutual self-determination, because self-determination necessitates conflict - therefore we have compromise in society.
Should the UK and the United States have respected Nazi German self-determination in the continent as long as they kept the peace with Anglophone countries?
In case you missed it, Britain entered WW2 as a result of keeping its promise to Poland, and did its darned best to continue doing so despite bankrupting itself in the process. And Germany declared war on the US.
As for mutual self determination: all diplomacy is based on reciprocity. If it's deemed an acceptable argument to point to our intervention as why we are a fair target (and NB. his sister said it was US attacks that made him decide to attack us), why is the reciprocal deemed to be unacceptable? Why are they allowed to say that we shouldn't be there, but we're not allowed to say that they shouldn't be here?
I'd like to hear your solution to the problem. Or indeed your definition of the problem.
Which particular problem? Innocent people getting killed in someone else's war? Innocent people in this country getting killed in someone else's war?
Montmorency
05-26-2017, 15:17
In case you missed it, Britain entered WW2 as a result of keeping its promise to Poland, and did its darned best to continue doing so despite bankrupting itself in the process. And Germany declared war on the US.
As for mutual self determination: all diplomacy is based on reciprocity. If it's deemed an acceptable argument to point to our intervention as why we are a fair target (and NB. his sister said it was US attacks that made him decide to attack us), why is the reciprocal deemed to be unacceptable? Why are they allowed to say that we shouldn't be there, but we're not allowed to say that they shouldn't be here?
So the UK had reason to contest German self-determination (though honor toward Poland wasn't ultimately a significant factor).
Again you conflate a number of different questions.
What is a matter of deserts and what is a matter of consequences? Whether or not you believe British foreign policy is a direct cause of terrorist attacks, it's a petulant display to treat a country like a sports team fanatic, endlessly whingeing about it but calling it the pinnacle of oppression when non-fanatics offer an opinion too. This is a question you need to give proper consideration regardless of whether the actions of terrorists are right or wrong.
The self-determination of domestic radicals isn't that of countries, these being different kinds of entities; you shouldn't apply the term to individuals at all, in fact. Domestic radicals are additionaly your countrymen, and the actions they undertake are usually straightforwardly criminal under British law. Don't try to apply concepts to inappropriate contexts.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-26-2017, 15:51
The problem is that the UK foreign policy is absolutely blameless and was never wrong. And if it ever was undeniably "wrong", it doesn't count because they ended all slavery worldwide for ever!
Whilst this is, of course, true throughout the 19th Century it is not really applicable today. The Golden Age of the Foriegn Office when debates over policy were conducted in Ancient Greek merely for the greater ease of quoting Plato have come to an end.
Corbyn is referring to this modern, fallen, form of Statecraft so it's unfair to use our glorious Empire as a beating stick to undermine his point.
Take the Zulus for example, they were terrible slackers who were too lazy to invent gunpowder and got slaughtered by the British in return, who were just defending their country.
British foreign policy is (and always has been) the height of enlightenment and more altruistic than Mother Theresa. Only a terrorist would ever disagree with that.
Yes, excellent example, had almost nothing to do with the Foreign Office as Lt General Chelmsford was acting without orders. Shocking he got away with it, really.
Here's the situation.
This man was a Libyan refugee, we recently liberated Libya from the man his parents fled. Following that the locals have sent the country half to hell and he decided to blow up some teenagers. His insane response is not our fault.
You are InsaneApache from 30 years ago. About to make that leap from labour to hard right.
Apache is less Right Wing than you are Left Wing and Pannonian only appears to be shifting to the Right because Labour is abandoning the Centre and he feels they have no answer to this problem.
Pannonian
05-26-2017, 16:07
So the UK had reason to contest German self-determination (though honor toward Poland wasn't ultimately a significant factor).
Again you conflate a number of different questions.
What is a matter of deserts and what is a matter of consequences? Whether or not you believe British foreign policy is a direct cause of terrorist attacks, it's a petulant display to treat a country like a sports team fanatic, endlessly whingeing about it but calling it the pinnacle of oppression when non-fanatics offer an opinion too. This is a question you need to give proper consideration regardless of whether the actions of terrorists are right or wrong.
The self-determination of domestic radicals isn't that of countries, these being different kinds of entities; you shouldn't apply the term to individuals at all, in fact. Domestic radicals are additionaly your countrymen, and the actions they undertake are usually straightforwardly criminal under British law. Don't try to apply concepts to inappropriate contexts.
And there is the salient point. They were born here, but their parents weren't. And radicalism does not decrease with each successive generation, but it's the younger generation, born here and raised here, who cause problems. If we can't remove these from the pool as they're our countrymen, why should we further add to that pool? After all, future prospective incomers aren't our countrymen, but outsiders from another country.
Unlike you, I respect the principle of self determination.
I have no recollection of what you are referring to I'm afraid, but given that you constantly blame me for things you only imagine me saying, that's perfectly fine with me.
It just bothers me that you claim you support self-determination and yet defend the colonial adventures of your country that robbed people of self-determination and put them into artificial nation-states that obviously aren't actual nations and don't work. But hey, I just hate you so it's all fine, nothing to see here, keep calm and pretend you never did anything wrong.
And just in case you want to follow this up with a "but he was a 2nd gen immigrant!", the people who benefitted from his brainwashing and wanted to brainwash him for their purposes probably aren't.
Just as the Zulu's actions doesnt nullify the wrongs of the british invasion, the iraq war doesnt make right of this terrorist attack.
I don't think a lot of people say it does. What many might say is that it is a logical consequence to some extent. You reap what you sow and so on. This may shock you, but I'm as much against terrorist attacks as you are.
Montmorency
05-26-2017, 16:57
And there is the salient point. They were born here, but their parents weren't. And radicalism does not decrease with each successive generation, but it's the younger generation, born here and raised here, who cause problems. If we can't remove these from the pool as they're our countrymen, why should we further add to that pool? After all, future prospective incomers aren't our countrymen, but outsiders from another country.
Could it be a better idea to engage the problem than to abdicate responsibility? Religious or national quarantines indicate an outstanding level of disdain for those who currently are your countrymen, aside from demanding a departure from contemporary British ideals. To many of your fellows who find your approach inimical to their view of the country, you would come to exemplify the understanding that "the enemy of my enemy is not my friend but my enemy's enemy".
Pannonian
05-26-2017, 17:57
Apache is less Right Wing than you are Left Wing and Pannonian only appears to be shifting to the Right because Labour is abandoning the Centre and he feels they have no answer to this problem.
More a case of exasperation with how we get it in the neck whatever we do or don't do, rules changing with no consistent philosophical basis except the conclusion that we're wrong and must be punished (Calvinball). If people are going to say we're wrong and hate us anyway, we might as well have a consistent philosophical argument, within international law, and go for the cheapest and clearest solution possible. If intervention is wrong and non-intervention is wrong, depending on which option we'd last chosen, then at least non-intervention across the board is cheaper. If an indefinitely replenishing number of British Muslims are going to hate us and attack us, and no-one's going to take them for us, then at least we can stop adding to their number from abroad. Other ongoing solutions can go on top of that.
Pannonian
05-26-2017, 18:24
Could it be a better idea to engage the problem than to abdicate responsibility? Religious or national quarantines indicate an outstanding level of disdain for those who currently are your countrymen, aside from demanding a departure from contemporary British ideals. To many of your fellows who find your approach inimical to their view of the country, you would come to exemplify the understanding that "the enemy of my enemy is not my friend but my enemy's enemy".
These are contemporary British ideals. The UK left the EU because the Brexiteers feared the admission of Turkey would allow Muslims a free road into this country, among other things. Certainly immigration and Muslims are the top reason(s).
Montmorency
05-26-2017, 18:39
These are contemporary British ideals. The UK left the EU because the Brexiteers feared the admission of Turkey would allow Muslims a free road into this country, among other things. Certainly immigration and Muslims are the top reason(s).
So the next step is to bar all Muslims? That would be a return to 19th-century ideals.
Pannonian, why is criticism so important to you? Any policy can be criticized by anyone - that doesn't leave you to crawl into a cave and hope all the meanies leave you alone, does it? You take criticism into account where possible and adopt reasonable courses of action, knowing you can't and shouldn't please everyone. "Damned if you do and damned if you don't" is your favorite premise, yet it is wholly untrue and seems borne out of petulant parochialism. Criticism exists. Get over it.
Do the right :daisy: thing or you aren't fit to even stand to hear criticism.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-26-2017, 19:53
So the next step is to bar all Muslims? That would be a return to 19th-century ideals.
Pannonian, why is criticism so important to you? Any policy can be criticized by anyone - that doesn't leave you to crawl into a cave and hope all the meanies leave you alone, does it? You take criticism into account where possible and adopt reasonable courses of action, knowing you can't and shouldn't please everyone. "Damned if you do and damned if you don't" is your favorite premise, yet it is wholly untrue and seems borne out of petulant parochialism. Criticism exists. Get over it.
Do the right :daisy: thing or you aren't fit to even stand to hear criticism.
Pannonian's point is that if we intervene we're evil Imperialists, (Libya) and if we don't intervene we don't care (Syria) and its often the SAME PEOPLE making both arguments.
It is, therefore not possible to "take criticism into account where possible and adopt reasonable courses of action."
There is a well documented trend of second generation immigrants being more extreme and less integrated into British culture than their parents. This manifests not only in Terrorism but in tacit support for Suicide bombing, rejection of liberal Western ideals (such as women not having to cover up) and generally being bad citizens.
The fact is, in the UK only Muslims commit suicide bombings and irrc all the bombers have been born here.
So, if we let in no more Muslim immigrants or refugees they will not go on to have children who become suicide bombers and murder other people's children.
It's not a very compassionate response but it is a completely logical one.
Pannonian
05-26-2017, 20:09
Pannonian's point is that if we intervene we're evil Imperialists, (Libya) and if we don't intervene we don't care (Syria) and its often the SAME PEOPLE making both arguments.
It is, therefore not possible to "take criticism into account where possible and adopt reasonable courses of action."
There is a well documented trend of second generation immigrants being more extreme and less integrated into British culture than their parents. This manifests not only in Terrorism but in tacit support for Suicide bombing, rejection of liberal Western ideals (such as women not having to cover up) and generally being bad citizens.
The fact is, in the UK only Muslims commit suicide bombings and irrc all the bombers have been born here.
So, if we let in no more Muslim immigrants or refugees they will not go on to have children who become suicide bombers and murder other people's children.
It's not a very compassionate response but it is a completely logical one.
We did all we could for Abedi's family, and he, a born and raised Briton, went and did what he did. And according to his (unapologetic) sister, it was the sight of victims of US bombings that made him decide to attack us. And after all that, you still have people blaming us for bringing these attacks on.
There is nothing we can do to appease these nutters and their apologists.
Montmorency
05-26-2017, 20:11
It is, therefore not possible to "take criticism into account where possible and adopt reasonable courses of action."
Why isn't it? Does a policy have no other motivation behind it than to meet the standards of a particular group of critics? Criticism is no excuse for self-indulgent ambivalence. Do you cut all funding for the NHS because administering it is difficult? Do you drop the nuclear deterrent because its expensive and some people don't like it?
Also extend these critics the possibility of disagreement in good will. Not everyone who has specific criticisms of British foreign policy is willing to attack British institutions or people over it.
So, if we let in no more Muslim immigrants or refugees they will not go on to have children who become suicide bombers and murder other people's children.
And if you stop all births we will not have to worry about crimes or bad citizens again. Perfectly logical - but has little relevance to governance.
Montmorency
05-26-2017, 20:12
There is nothing we can do to appease these nutters and their apologists.
So instead of worrying about "nutters and apologists", why not try developing good policy?
Pannonian
05-26-2017, 20:22
So instead of worrying about "nutters and apologists", why not try developing good policy?
There is no good policy. We took in Abedi's parents as refugees from Qaddafi's Libya. They had this and other sprogs here. Said sprogs grew up here, aided by the state. We removed Qaddafi, as would have been Abedi sr's wish, and half the Abedi family returned to a liberated Libya. And this arsehole stayed behind to do what he did, after watching what the US did.
The only good policy would have been not taking in the older Abedis in the first place. Everything after that was as compassionate and progressive as any liberal democratic state can get. And we know the end result.
Montmorency
05-26-2017, 20:27
Everything after that was as compassionate and progressive as any liberal democratic state can get.
You keep saying this - do you just assume that? Is it something osmotic, perhaps?
Regardless, however, would you consider - in the 20th century - barring entry to all East-European refugees when the child of one commits a terror attack?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-26-2017, 20:32
So instead of worrying about "nutters and apologists", why not try developing good policy?
Like what?
Maybe restrict preaching and access to Saudi Korans?
Oh sure, that'll go down well "Look, the Crusaders are trying to tell us our own religion."
For the UK Islamic Terrorism is an imported problem, terrorists are either second generation Muslim immigrants or first-generation converts.
What a lot of people seem to forget, too, if that current policy stems from the paradigm-shift that was 9/11 - an essentially unprovoked attack on the anniversary of the Battle of Vienna.
Montmorency
05-26-2017, 20:40
Like what?
Maybe restrict preaching and access to Saudi Korans?
Oh sure, that'll go down well "Look, the Crusaders are trying to tell us our own religion."
For the UK Islamic Terrorism is an imported problem, terrorists are either second generation Muslim immigrants or first-generation converts.
What a lot of people seem to forget, too, if that current policy stems from the paradigm-shift that was 9/11 - an essentially unprovoked attack on the anniversary of the Battle of Vienna.
Islamic terrorism is a problem that the world must manage and weather. You'll see it whether you repress your Muslims or respect them.
Pannonian
05-26-2017, 20:42
You keep saying this - do you just assume that? Is it something osmotic, perhaps?
Regardless, however, would you consider - in the 20th century - barring entry to all East-European refugees when the child of one commits a terror attack?
I've repeated it several times, so have you not read it, or have you dismissed it? Note what his sister said his motives were.
You've kept hammering the argument that we're somehow to blame. Could you suggest what we could have done instead that might have made him not attack us?
Montmorency
05-26-2017, 21:05
I've repeated it several times, so have you not read it, or have you dismissed it? Note what his sister said his motives were.
Beyond merely existing in Britain.
You've kept hammering the argument that we're somehow to blame. Could you suggest what we could have done instead that might have made him not attack us?
I haven't discussed blame. I specifically told you at the outset that I'm not discussing blame. You have this great difficulty changing the record from whatever track you are on. I'm trying to explain why the way you are thinking is an unproductive approach and describing what else there is to think, but you keep snapping back to your original line and reading everything relative to that perspective.
And I haven't been discussing ways to convince specific people not to subscribe to jihadi ideologies, because that's a futile exercise. You work with the population as a whole, first to do the actual appropriate governance that people living in a state need generally, second those specific programs aimed to improve security and encourage integration. If you simply have a visceral hatred of Muslims or are willing to apply collective punishment for even a single transgression, then our values are just too different and all I can hope for is to stand in your way.
Pannonian
05-26-2017, 21:20
Beyond merely existing in Britain.
I haven't discussed blame. I specifically told you at the outset that I'm not discussing blame. You have this great difficulty changing the record from whatever track you are on. I'm trying to explain why the way you are thinking is an unproductive approach and describing what else there is to think, but you keep snapping back to your original line and reading everything relative to that perspective.
And I haven't been discussing ways to convince specific people not to subscribe to jihadi ideologies, because that's a futile exercise. You work with the population as a whole, first to do the actual appropriate governance that people living in a state need generally, second those specific programs aimed to improve security and encourage integration. If you simply have a visceral hatred of Muslims or are willing to apply collective punishment for even a single transgression, then our values are just too different and all I can hope for is to stand in your way.
Haras Rafiq On Manchester Attack - Enough Is Enough (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6lAvVxyrwk)
Haras Rafiq is chief executive of Quilliam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quilliam_(think_tank)).
Quilliam is a London-based left-of-center[1] think tank that focuses on counter-extremism, specifically against Islamism, which it argues represents a desire to impose a given interpretation of Islam on society. Founded as The Quilliam Foundation, it lobbies government and public institutions for more nuanced policies regarding Islam and on the need for greater democracy in the Muslim world whilst empowering moderate Muslim voices.
According to one of its co-founders, Maajid Nawaz, "We wish to raise awareness around Islamism";[2] he also said, "I want to demonstrate how the Islamist ideology is incompatible with Islam. Secondly … develop a Western Islam that is at home in Britain and in Europe … reverse radicalisation by taking on their arguments and countering them."[3]
The organisation opposes any Islamist ideology and champions freedom of expression. The critique of Islamist ideology by its founders, Maajid Nawaz, Rashad Zaman Ali and Ed Husain, is based, in part, on their personal experiences.[4]
Quilliam defines Islamism in the following terms:
It is the belief that Islam is a political ideology, as well as a faith. It is a modernist claim that political sovereignty belongs to God, that the Shari'ah should be used as state law, that Muslims form a political rather than a religious bloc around the world and that it is a religious duty for all Muslims to create a political entity that is governed as such. Islamism is a spectrum, with Islamists disagreeing over how they should bring their ‘Islamic’ state into existence.
Some Islamists seek to engage with existing political systems, others reject the existing systems as illegitimate but do so non-violently, and others seek to create an 'Islamic state' through violence. Most Islamists are socially modern but others advocate a more retrograde lifestyle. Islamists often have contempt for Muslim scholars and sages and their traditional institutions; as well as a disdain for non-Islamist Muslims and the West.[10]
Quilliam argues that Islam is just a religion, not a political religion or an ideology,[11] and that "Islam is not Islamism".[12] It also argues that "[Islamists] are extreme because of their rigidity in understanding politics".[13]
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-26-2017, 21:27
We've been doing the integration thing for decades, help to learn English, interpreters until you do, passing laws and monitoring to make sure people aren't being discriminated against, educating non-Muslims about Islam in schools.
This guy, and his siblings, had all that given to them, literally given, by the state and he still goes and kills children and his sister defends him because of something happening in another country we aren't at war with.
This isn't like fighting the IRA where it was a cross-generational thing and there was an older generation to talk to, and there were real legitimate grievances, and possible negotiation on a solution.
The Muslims who carry out these attacks are fighting a war of annihilation. You think it's just happenstance he chose an Ariana Grande concert? I don't. I think, in his mind, she was a symbol of everything he hated about the land of his birth.
I don't like the idea of stopping Muslim immigration, I doubt Pannonian likes it either but you need to present another alternative we haven't tried - instead of just smug criticism.
Pannonian
05-26-2017, 21:36
We've been doing the integration thing for decades, help to learn English, interpreters until you do, passing laws and monitoring to make sure people aren't being discriminated against, educating non-Muslims about Islam in schools.
This guy, and his siblings, had all that given to them, literally given, by the state and he still goes and kills children and his sister defends him because of something happening in another country we aren't at war with.
This isn't like fighting the IRA where it was a cross-generational thing and there was an older generation to talk to, and there were real legitimate grievances, and possible negotiation on a solution.
The Muslims who carry out these attacks are fighting a war of annihilation. You think it's just happenstance he chose an Ariana Grande concert? I don't. I think, in his mind, she was a symbol of everything he hated about the land of his birth.
I don't like the idea of stopping Muslim immigration, I doubt Pannonian likes it either but you need to present another alternative we haven't tried - instead of just smug criticism.
I was educated in an integrated system, comprehensives and all, meeting people from many cultures. The Muslims I met, and I knew enough to be familiar with Pakistani surnames, were little different from anyone else. I knew at least one who had a stonking huge union flag in his room, which I thought was rather tacky. I had no problems with Muslims from that generation or earlier. Why are we expected to give younger Muslims special treatment for fear of violent retaliation, when those I knew got on well enough without?
Montmorency
05-26-2017, 22:12
We've been doing the integration thing for decades, help to learn English, interpreters until you do, passing laws and monitoring to make sure people aren't being discriminated against, educating non-Muslims about Islam in schools.
This guy, and his siblings, had all that given to them, literally given, by the state and he still goes and kills children and his sister defends him because of something happening in another country we aren't at war with.
This isn't like fighting the IRA where it was a cross-generational thing and there was an older generation to talk to, and there were real legitimate grievances, and possible negotiation on a solution.
The Muslims who carry out these attacks are fighting a war of annihilation. You think it's just happenstance he chose an Ariana Grande concert? I don't. I think, in his mind, she was a symbol of everything he hated about the land of his birth.
I don't like the idea of stopping Muslim immigration, I doubt Pannonian likes it either but you need to present another alternative we haven't tried - instead of just smug criticism.
Just as a separate matter - let's be clear Pannonian, I'm not claiming that this either drove Abedi to or justified him in carrying out the attack - you seem very sure of what services or treatment this or other families did or did not receive, or that whatever they did receive was exactly what was needed. Maybe integration policy in fact has been perfunctory and inconsistent?
Don't compare to the IRA, but to the Communists. The comparison rests not on the use of terrorism, but on the desire to implement a totally different social structure and form of government, incompatible with the existing system. The only way for it to be beaten is for the idea and its accessories to lose currency around the world. This can't be accomplished in or by any one country. A country may, however, have better or worse ways of managing the problem. I am perfectly comfortable in criticizing the impulse to drop the ball and sit on the ground as a petty response to a difficult situation.
Haras Rafiq On Manchester Attack - Enough Is Enough (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6lAvVxyrwk)
Haras Rafiq is chief executive of Quilliam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quilliam_(think_tank)).
I don't know what in particular you want to raise from the video, or if it is meant as part of a supplementary discussion, and I find little of the video disagreeable, so I'll just make some remarks:
The attack is the "new normal" in the absolute sense that terror attacks in Europe and elsewhere are and have been normal for some time, but in the sense that certain values or expectations should be discouraged from normalizing, I agree.
As far as existince of an enabling culture toward radicalization in Muslim communities, I agree, and grievances and unmet needs should be aired and addressed without creating a ready logical transition toward rejection of and violence against the society and political process.
I agree that terrorist organizations do not actively "radicalize" so much as offer a venue for practical pursuit of radical idea. On the other hand, their existence and popularity in itself does contribute as a radicalizing factor.
Lone wolves never exist in a vacuum, but the term itself refers to someone who operates without partners or aid - it's understood as an operational descriptive. Reading a book on bomb-making, or an article about terror attacks, isn't the same as being coached through the process by a card-carrying jihadi, or even working together with local acquaintances.
With respect to homophobia, racism, and fascism, governments have tended to find it difficult to leada societal shift against them. Legislation to guarantee protections and the like helps, but agencies and outreach programs can only supplement an organic societal shift, or shape its direction, not produce it. So it's important to keep in mind the limits of what the state can accomplish through "educating people" directly. For Islam, indirect efforts and supporting community efforts themselves is more likely to be successful than central executive departments, I have to admit. On the other hand, trying to promulgate specific arguments, whether top-down or bottom-up, will suffer from lack of exposure and inadequate context, making it far from a panacea.
Following from this, Rafiq's endorsement of a values-based dialectical approach - seemingly descended from aspects of 18th-century popular pamphleteering - will find it difficult to make headway on a large scale because there are not many people, Muslim or non-Muslim, who can implement it on the specified terms. The increasing fragmentation and rightism of non-Muslim society makes it more difficult to address the fragmentation and right-ward turn of Muslim demographics.
Pannonian
05-26-2017, 22:18
Just as a separate matter - let's be clear Pannonian, I'm not claiming that this either drove Abedi to or justified him in carrying out the attack - you seem very sure of what services or treatment this or other families did or did not receive, or that whatever they did receive was exactly what was needed. Maybe integration policy in fact has been perfunctory and inconsistent?
Don't compare to the IRA, but to the Communists. The comparison rests not on the use of terrorism, but on the desire to implement a totally different social structure and form of government, incompatible with the existing system. The only way for it to be beaten is for the idea and its accessories to lose currency around the world. This can't be accomplished in or by any one country. A country may, however, have better or worse ways of managing the problem. I am perfectly comfortable in criticizing the impulse to drop the ball and sit on the ground as a petty response to a difficult situation.
I don't know what in particular you want to raise from the video, or if it is meant as part of a supplementary discussion, and I find little of the video disagreeable, so I'll just make some remarks:
The attack is the "new normal" in the absolute sense that terror attacks in Europe and elsewhere are and have been normal for some time, but in the sense that certain values or expectations should be discouraged from normalizing, I agree.
As far as existince of an enabling culture toward radicalization in Muslim communities, I agree, and grievances and unmet needs should be aired and addressed without creating a ready logical transition toward rejection of and violence against the society and political process.
I agree that terrorist organizations do not actively "radicalize" so much as offer a venue for practical pursuit of radical idea. On the other hand, their existence and popularity in itself does contribute as a radicalizing factor.
Lone wolves never exist in a vacuum, but the term itself refers to someone who operates without partners or aid - it's understood as an operational descriptive. Reading a book on bomb-making, or an article about terror attacks, isn't the same as being coached through the process by a card-carrying jihadi, or even working together with local acquaintances.
With respect to homophobia, racism, and fascism, governments have tended to find it difficult to leada societal shift against them. Legislation to guarantee protections and the like helps, but agencies and outreach programs can only supplement an organic societal shift, or shape its direction, not produce it. So it's important to keep in mind the limits of what the state can accomplish through "educating people" directly. For Islam, indirect efforts and supporting community efforts themselves is more likely to be successful than central executive departments, I have to admit. On the other hand, trying to promulgate specific arguments, whether top-down or bottom-up, will suffer from lack of exposure and inadequate context, making it far from a panacea.
Following from this, Rafiq's endorsement of a values-based dialectical approach - seemingly descended from aspects of 18th-century popular pamphleteering - will find it difficult to make headway on a large scale because there are not many people, Muslim or non-Muslim, who can implement it on the specified terms. The increasing fragmentation and rightism of non-Muslim society makes it more difficult to address the fragmentation and right-ward turn of Muslim demographics.
The point he's making, and he uses Andy Burnham as an example, is that people should stop pretending that this is about anything other than Muslims practicing a form of Islam. And you go on and illustrate his point. No amount of long words and multiple paragraphs will disprove his point.
Montmorency
05-26-2017, 22:26
And you go on and illustrate his point. No amount of long words and multiple paragraphs will disprove his point.
Maybe because I agree with that point?
Pannonian
05-27-2017, 00:23
Just as a separate matter - let's be clear Pannonian, I'm not claiming that this either drove Abedi to or justified him in carrying out the attack - you seem very sure of what services or treatment this or other families did or did not receive, or that whatever they did receive was exactly what was needed. Maybe integration policy in fact has been perfunctory and inconsistent?
I've just noticed this. Of course the integration policy would have been comprehensive. He was born here. Being a British kid, he would have automatically had access to state support, from birth until he left school at 18. Since he went to university, that support would have extended beyond that age, and for as long as he was at university. Depending on when he left, it's possible that he could have been raised by the state from birth until he decided to kill those children.
Montmorency
05-27-2017, 00:32
He was born here
And? I'm not talking about the things that are generally available, but immigrant-specific or Muslim-specific items, which you only mentioned in the most abstract terms. Do you have a source on this particular family's history, the town or area in which they've lived, or are you making assumptions on your knowledge of things that are in principle possible or available.
Pannonian
05-27-2017, 00:52
And? I'm not talking about the things that are generally available, but immigrant-specific or Muslim-specific items, which you only mentioned in the most abstract terms. Do you have a source on this particular family's history, the town or area in which they've lived, or are you making assumptions on your knowledge of things that are in principle possible or available.
Bloody hell. I grew up with lots of Muslims. During cricket series, Pakistan fans would often outnumber England fans. Their culture was their own business, and none of the state's. What the state does, at least for kids, is ensure their welfare from birth until adulthood. Muslim kids are no different from other kids. They have a roof over their heads, they're fed, and they're educated. The environment they grow up in is British. Their culture is a mixture of home culture and outside culture. What kind of integration are you expecting? For that matter, what experience do you have of growing up among sizeable numbers of Muslims?
Montmorency
05-27-2017, 01:10
Muslim kids are no different from other kids. They have a roof over their heads, they're fed, and they're educated. The environment they grow up in is British.
Please, you're again addressing something different than what I am. What I'm interested in with the very specific point of the last few posts is the actual experience of (Muslim) immigrants with the government and other groups, their services, and their offices as a matter of day-to-day life, not just law, policy objectives, or hopes and dreams.
For that matter, what experience do you have of growing up among sizeable numbers of Muslims?
As I've mentioned in the past, I'm a New Yorker.
A brief example to help orient you toward what I've been asking would be the NYANA (New York Association for New Americans) organization. This was a non-governmental organization that throughout the second half of the 20th century provided interpreting, English-instruction, vocational training, clinical, and other services to refugees and immigrants arriving in New York, particularly Soviet Jews. This does not mean that all services were evenly distributed and accessed by all to an equal extent. NYANA helped some people a lot, while others got very little out of it, as is natural with organizations in real life.
So the question is one of what is available, what is accessible, what are the actual experiences of those targeted, and how do these vary by time, place, national origin, and other factors. This is in contrast to your very broad assumption of what must apply to all residents simply by dint of their existence in the UK, as though this stuff works through osmosis.
Pannonian
05-27-2017, 01:28
Please, you're again addressing something different than what I am. What I'm interested in with the very specific point of the last few posts is the actual experience of (Muslim) immigrants with the government and other groups, their services, and their offices as a matter of day-to-day life, not just law, policy objectives, or hopes and dreams.
As I've mentioned in the past, I'm a New Yorker.
A brief example to help orient you toward what I've been asking would be the NYANA (New York Association for New Americans) organization. This was a non-governmental organization that throughout the second half of the 20th century provided interpreting, English-instruction, vocational training, clinical, and other services to refugees and immigrants arriving in New York, particularly Soviet Jews. This does not mean that all services were evenly distributed and accessed by all to an equal extent. NYANA helped some people a lot, while others got very little out of it, as is natural with organizations in real life.
So the question is one of what is available, what is accessible, what are the actual experiences of those targeted, and how do these vary by time, place, national origin, and other factors. This is in contrast to your very broad assumption of what must apply to all residents simply by dint of their existence in the UK, as though this stuff works through osmosis.
Why would these be relevant when they're born here, and when they enter the school system at the latest, they'll be exposed to the full spectrum of the British multicultural experience within the British school system? Kids are kids. They will mix within schools. The resulting culture isn't Muslim, Jewish, or whatever, but an amalgam of whatever they see at home mixed with what their friends are interested in. The state doesn't regulate that mixture. The state ensures children grow up healthy and are given a reasonable chance in life.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-27-2017, 01:40
In the UK people get all that from the government, as a matter of course.
Note how the head of Quilliam has nothing to say about lack of efforts to integration. What he's saying is that Muslims don't challenge bigotry in their own communities.
Montmorency
05-27-2017, 01:42
Why would these be relevant when they're born here, and when they enter the school system at the latest, they'll be exposed to the full spectrum of the British multicultural experience within the British school system? Kids are kids. They will mix within schools. The resulting culture isn't Muslim, Jewish, or whatever, but an amalgam of whatever they see at home mixed with what their friends are interested in. The state doesn't regulate that mixture. The state ensures children grow up healthy and are given a reasonable chance in life.
Do white British children all have an identical experience growing up? Are all happy families alike?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-27-2017, 02:22
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/26/exclusive-manchester-suicide-bomber-used-student-loan-benefits/
So, apparently he used his student loan to fund trips to Libya.
You know, the Libya without Gaddaffi?
Sarmatian
05-27-2017, 08:45
Kids are kids. They will mix within schools.
No. Muslim kids will suffer discrimination and bullying because they are Muslims. And every time anti-Muslim hysteria rises, they're gonna suffer more of it.
Then they will come home, turn on the tv and there will be panel of experts discussing how Muslim are dangerous, how they can never be integrated, how they need to be force converted, expelled, imprisoned, tortured etc... They will then move on to internet and find even more abuse, comparing them with rats and hyenas, explaining how they are subhumans, barbaric, encounter suggestions that Muslims should be cleansed from one or more places, hashtags #killallmuslims and so on.
Not that easy to accept your new nation as a home.
Fun facts:
1) 60% of Muslim in the UK witnessed or experienced discrimination against Muslims in 2015
2) 63% experienced subtle discrimination, where they were talked down to, called stupid or had their opinions minimised or devalued.
3) More than 50% said they've been overlooked, ignored or denied service in restaurants, transports and public offices.
4) 75% said they've experienced strangers staring at them.
None of this really excuses mass murder, of course, but let's stop pretending everything is fine and dandy.
Pannonian
05-27-2017, 09:03
No. Muslim kids will suffer discrimination and bullying because they are Muslims. And every time anti-Muslim hysteria rises, they're gonna suffer more of it.
Then they will come home, turn on the tv and there will be panel of experts discussing how Muslim are dangerous, how they can never be integrated, how they need to be force converted, expelled, imprisoned, tortured etc... They will then move on to internet and find even more abuse, comparing them with rats and hyenas, explaining how they are subhumans, barbaric, encounter suggestions that Muslims should be cleansed from one or more places, hashtags #killallmuslims and so on.
Not that easy to accept your new nation as a home.
Fun facts:
1) 60% of Muslim in the UK witnessed or experienced discrimination against Muslims in 2015
2) 63% experienced subtle discrimination, where they were talked down to, called stupid or had their opinions minimised or devalued.
3) More than 50% said they've been overlooked, ignored or denied service in restaurants, transports and public offices.
4) 75% said they've experienced strangers staring at them.
None of this really excuses mass murder, of course, but let's stop pretending everything is fine and dandy.
Er, no. In schools, Muslim kids suffer bullying, not because they're Muslims, but because they're kids. That's what kids do. They fix on anything remotely different, and tease or bully based on that. It's part of the process of growing up, learning to interact with others.
And as for "Not that easy to accept your new nation as a home."; he was born here. The moment his mother spat him out, this was his nation. Unless you're suggesting that the country he was born in and which raised him is not his nation, but is overridden by some other nation.
Furunculus
05-27-2017, 09:35
If an indefinitely replenishing number of British Muslims are going to hate us and attack us, and no-one's going to take them for us, then at least we can stop adding to their number from abroad. Other ongoing solutions can go on top of that.
I've always felt it to be a shame that we go to such lengths to prevent british [adults] from going to join their brethren in forging the new 'caliphate'.
there's lots a reaper drones and chaps with impressive moustache's doing sterling work in this regard. why inhibit the culling of the herd?
i don't really want to live among such people and count them as my countrymen. i'm all for the principle of rehabilitation, but...
Furunculus
05-27-2017, 09:41
Why isn't it? Does a policy have no other motivation behind it than to meet the standards of a particular group of critics? Criticism is no excuse for self-indulgent ambivalence. Do you cut all funding for the NHS because administering it is difficult? Do you drop the nuclear deterrent because its expensive and some people don't like it?
A good point worth making:
66% of people recently said that british FP is in some part responsible for terrorist atrocities such as manchester.
but, about the same proportion tell chatham house each year that they support britain as a great power.
How do we marry these two apparent contradictions?
Easy, their may well be a link between our FP and terrorism, but it is a price worth paying for the role people wish their country to play.
Pannonian
05-27-2017, 10:15
A good point worth making:
66% of people recently said that british FP is in some part responsible for terrorist atrocities such as manchester.
but, about the same proportion tell chatham house each year that they support britain as a great power.
How do we marry these two apparent contradictions?
Easy, their may well be a link between our FP and terrorism, but it is a price worth paying for the role people wish their country to play.
In this particular case, according to Abedi's sister, it was US foreign policy that made her brother want to attack Britain. What the hell are we supposed to do about that?
A good point worth making:
66% of people recently said that british FP is in some part responsible for terrorist atrocities such as manchester.
but, about the same proportion tell chatham house each year that they support britain as a great power.
How do we marry these two apparent contradictions?
Easy, their may well be a link between our FP and terrorism, but it is a price worth paying for the role people wish their country to play.
You have to wonder who benefits and who loses from terrorism. As a strategy for making the electorate change course on foreign policy, it's counterproductive. States use the fear to push for greater powers and to extend ambitions abroad. The background hum of fear is a boon to right wing parties and arms companies.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/26/exclusive-manchester-suicide-bomber-used-student-loan-benefits/
So, apparently he used his student loan to fund trips to Libya.
You know, the Libya without Gaddaffi?
The one you fixed, yes.
I wonder why he didn't learn about democratic values there given that Britain fixed it for him as Pannonian likes to point out.
Pannonian
05-27-2017, 11:20
This incident should be an eye opener for anyone neutral who didn't believe that there are those who will blame Britain for all the ills in the world, even where someone raised by the state decides to kill children at a concert.
In this particular case, according to Abedi's sister, it was US foreign policy that made her brother want to attack Britain. What the hell are we supposed to do about that?
Distance yourself from their actions very loudly, criticize them and declare to the world that you want no part in this and won't trade military technology and intelligence with them anymore as long as they do this. You know, like everyone demands that the muslims do to absolve themselves from blame when their (perceived) "allies" do something terrible.
This incident should be an eye opener for anyone neutral who didn't believe that there are those who will blame Britain for all the ills in the world, even where someone raised by the state decides to kill children at a concert.
Or an eye opener for those who did not want to believe that some Brits turn into a broken record because they cannot wrap their head around the idea that their country may make mistakes. "Raised by the state" is really funny in this context, since you either blame the British state yourself now or try to use an upbringing as an argument that counts as the worst possible upbringing in most other countries.
In your argument with Montmorency you keep talking about all your muslim friends who turned out fine, but ignore how an upbringing in London and Manchester or even in different parts of a town can be very different and lead to fundamentally different world views. You're trying to simplify the argument to the point that it does not reflect the real world anymore when you propose that all British (muslim) children receive the same upbringing and can be directly compared.
Gilrandir
05-27-2017, 12:05
Fun facts:
1) 60% of Muslim in the UK witnessed or experienced discrimination against Muslims in 2015
2) 63% experienced subtle discrimination, where they were talked down to, called stupid or had their opinions minimised or devalued.
3) More than 50% said they've been overlooked, ignored or denied service in restaurants, transports and public offices.
4) 75% said they've experienced strangers staring at them.
All of these are to be taken seriously ONLY IF it can be proved that 1) the perpetrators KNEW THEY WERE DEALING WITH MUSLIMS and 2) knowing they were dealing with Muslims was the chief motif behind their behavior. Otherwise it will sound like 100% of European women in bathing suits having a walk in Riyadh downtown claim they were stared upon or were denied services in reataurants because they were Christians.
Sarmatian
05-27-2017, 12:48
Er, no. In schools, Muslim kids suffer bullying, not because they're Muslims, but because they're kids. That's what kids do. They fix on anything remotely different, and tease or bully based on that. It's part of the process of growing up, learning to interact with others.
That's bollox. Teacher suggesting in class that everyone should wear T-shirts representing Mohamed to piss of Muslim among other drivel. Kid goes home after that class, gets stopped by a few older kids, who, aside from flinging a few typical racial insults like "Paki" proceed to call him a terrorist and slap him around.
Just a normal part of growing up.
I work in education in a region where there are over 20 different ethnic groups. I know the difference between kids picking on each other and serious discrimination. This was not harmless.
And as for "Not that easy to accept your new nation as a home."; he was born here. The moment his mother spat him out, this was his nation. Unless you're suggesting that the country he was born in and which raised him is not his nation, but is overridden by some other nation.
Being born somewhere doesn't make really make you a part of that society. If you're denied service in public offices, if you're talked down to, if you hear politicians saying that you should be driven out of the country, that you're a danger to society, if you get bullied and beaten up because of that, if you're discriminated against at work... you're not going to feel at home there.
People who have not been discriminated against usually don't have the faintest idea how it feels.
Pannonian
05-27-2017, 12:59
That's bollox. Teacher suggesting in class that everyone should wear T-shirts representing Mohamed to piss of Muslim among other drivel. Kid goes home after that class, gets stopped by a few older kids, who, aside from flinging a few typical racial insults like "Paki" proceed to call him a terrorist and slap him around.
Just a normal part of growing up.
I work in education in a region where there are over 20 different ethnic groups. I know the difference between kids picking on each other and serious discrimination. This was not harmless.
Being born somewhere doesn't make really make you a part of that society. If you're denied service in public offices, if you're talked down to, if you hear politicians saying that you should be driven out of the country, that you're a danger to society, if you get bullied and beaten up because of that, if you're discriminated against at work... you're not going to feel at home there.
People who have not been discriminated against usually don't have the faintest idea how it feels.
I apologise. It turns out Abedi was bullied as a kid (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/26/salman-abedi-manchester-arena-attack-partying-suicide-bomber).
Friends recalled that he was not very devout as a younger teenager, and was teased about his prominent ears and given the nickname Dumbo.
A traumatic experience I'm sure, and which turned him into what he became.
One friend said Abedi started fights in the street for no reason, while another told of an incident in which he punched a female classmate in the head, saying “he could have killed her”, because he didn’t approve of what she was wearing.
And because people keep missing this point despite my repeating it numerous times.
Jomana Abedi said her brother had been driven by a desire to seek “revenge” for US military attacks in the Middle East.
Furunculus
05-27-2017, 13:10
You have to wonder who benefits and who loses from terrorism. As a strategy for making the electorate change course on foreign policy, it's counterproductive. States use the fear to push for greater powers and to extend ambitions abroad. The background hum of fear is a boon to right wing parties and arms companies.
It [can] be counterproductive:
It was extremely productive in 2004 in Spain in getting the country to withdraw from Iraq.
Less so in Britain, and i imagine the same can be said of france.
The reaction depends on [your] conception of your country's role in world affairs.
The chatham house foriegn policy poll conducted every year (i think), is illuminating.
In this particular case, according to Abedi's sister, it was US foreign policy that made her brother want to attack Britain. What the hell are we supposed to do about that?
Sure, but from the point of view of whether we should continue to have an activist foriegn policy, does it matter what the motivations of one little nutcase is? Surely it is simply too micro to the macro conception of our world role?
Pannonian
05-27-2017, 13:13
It [can] be counterproductive:
It was extremely productive in 2004 in Spain in getting the country to withdraw from Iraq.
Less so in Britain, and i imagine the same can be said of france.
The recation depends on [your] conception of your country's role in world affairs.
The chatham house foriegn policy poll conducted every year (i think), is illuminating.
Abedi bombed kids in Manchester to force the US to withdraw from Syria.
All of these are to be taken seriously ONLY IF it can be proved that 1) the perpetrators KNEW THEY WERE DEALING WITH MUSLIMS and 2) knowing they were dealing with Muslims was the chief motif behind their behavior. Otherwise it will sound like 100% of European women in bathing suits having a walk in Riyadh downtown claim they were stared upon or were denied services in reataurants because they were Christians.
They are still valid regarding how muslims perceive their reception in Britain. There's always some excuse for how the racists can be racist because the muslims make it so easy to perceive them as evil, but the other way around it's somehow the muslims' fault that they perceive a lot of Britons to be racist? It easily turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy on both sides, especially when the response to this perception is very aggressive. Yes, of course the response by muslims is often wrong, terrorism and rioting in the streets just don't help, but neither do racists policy proposals, spitting on foreign-looking people and all the other little things racists may do to make them feel not accepted.
Now what a lot of people seem to think is that the more powerful side should be the first to break the circle and extend a hand. Muslims make up 4.4% of the population of the UK, clearly they are the more powerful side here.
Pannonian
05-27-2017, 13:56
They are still valid regarding how muslims perceive their reception in Britain. There's always some excuse for how the racists can be racist because the muslims make it so easy to perceive them as evil, but the other way around it's somehow the muslims' fault that they perceive a lot of Britons to be racist? It easily turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy on both sides, especially when the response to this perception is very aggressive. Yes, of course the response by muslims is often wrong, terrorism and rioting in the streets just don't help, but neither do racists policy proposals, spitting on foreign-looking people and all the other little things racists may do to make them feel not accepted.
Now what a lot of people seem to think is that the more powerful side should be the first to break the circle and extend a hand. Muslims make up 4.4% of the population of the UK, clearly they are the more powerful side here.
Should we take action against kids who tease other kids for having big ears?
Should we take action against kids who tease other kids for having big ears?
Of course.
Sarmatian
05-27-2017, 18:47
I apologise. It turns out Abedi was bullied as a kid (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/26/salman-abedi-manchester-arena-attack-partying-suicide-bomber).
A traumatic experience I'm sure, and which turned him into what he became.
And because people keep missing this point despite my repeating it numerous times.
You can play ignorant all you want. I'm talking about a trend. Whether this one case falls into that category or not is irrelevant.
You may also note that it appears his parents weren't really democrats oppressed by Gaddafi, but religious fundamentalists disapproving of a mostly secular regime. They were given refugee in UK. And then a coalition which included UK directly intervened to oust Gadaffi.
So, in this case at least, we can talk about direct consequences of UK's foreign policies.
Pannonian
05-27-2017, 19:00
You can play ignorant all you want. I'm talking about a trend. Whether this one case falls into that category or not is irrelevant.
You may also note that it appears his parents weren't really democrats oppressed by Gaddafi, but religious fundamentalists disapproving of a mostly secular regime. They were given refugee in UK. And then a coalition which included UK directly intervened to oust Gadaffi.
So, in this case at least, we can talk about direct consequences of UK's foreign policies.
I can't disagree on the direct consequences of the UK's foreign policies bit. I've said for a while that our best bet, if we are to intervene at all, is to prop up dictators rather than instigate democracy. Democracy in that region tends towards Islamism. Dictatorship, as brutal as the individual cares to be, is the most effective bulwark against Islamism in that region. If there's already a dictator there repressing the Muslim population, count ourselves lucky that we don't need to get our hands dirty to reach this state of affairs. Although people like Abedi may decide to kill our kids anyway to effect change in arseholeland, with apologists saying that it's our fault for intervening/not intervening (cross off as appropriate).
Pannonian
05-27-2017, 19:30
You can play ignorant all you want. I'm talking about a trend. Whether this one case falls into that category or not is irrelevant.
You may also note that it appears his parents weren't really democrats oppressed by Gaddafi, but religious fundamentalists disapproving of a mostly secular regime. They were given refugee in UK. And then a coalition which included UK directly intervened to oust Gadaffi.
So, in this case at least, we can talk about direct consequences of UK's foreign policies.
Another primary source on why ISIS hates the west, as opposed to your high horse theoretical moralism. I'll link to a secondary article, but you can google the mag itself. The original is the official ISIS mag.
Why We Hate you and Want to Fight You (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/why-isis-hate-you-reasons-8533563?service=responsive)
1. Because you are disbelievers
"We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices."
2 . Because you are liberal
"We hate you because your secular, liberal societies permit the very things that Allah has prohibited while banning many of the things He has permitted, a matter that doesn’t concern you because you Christian disbelief and paganism 32 separate between religion and state, thereby granting supreme authority to your whims and desires via the legislators you vote into power."
3. Because some of you are atheist
"In the case of the atheist fringe, we hate you and wage war against you because you disbelieve in the existence of your Lord and Creator."
4. For your crimes against Islam
"We hate you for your crimes against Islam and wage war against you to punish you for your transgressions against our religion."
5. For your crimes against Muslims
"We hate you for your crimes against the Muslims; your drones and fighter jets bomb, kill, and maim our people around the world, and your puppets in the usurped lands of the Muslims oppress, torture, and wage war against anyone who calls to the truth."
6. For invading our lands
"We hate you for invading our lands and fight you to repel you and drive you out. As long as there is an inch of territory left for us to reclaim, jihad will continue to be a personal obligation on every single Muslim."
"What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.
"The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam."
Yup, even if we were to stop intervening in the middle east, they would still hate us and find reason to attack us (NB. An act of terrorism? Most definitely. Muslims have been commanded to terrorize the disbelieving enemies of Allah."). So the only way to satisfactorily accommodate them is to convert to the ISIS-brand of Islam. Do the moralists still think we're not sufficiently accommodating them?
Sarmatian
05-27-2017, 21:52
I can't disagree on the direct consequences of the UK's foreign policies bit. I've said for a while that our best bet, if we are to intervene at all, is to prop up dictators rather than instigate democracy. Democracy in that region tends towards Islamism. Dictatorship, as brutal as the individual cares to be, is the most effective bulwark against Islamism in that region. If there's already a dictator there repressing the Muslim population, count ourselves lucky that we don't need to get our hands dirty to reach this state of affairs. Although people like Abedi may decide to kill our kids anyway to effect change in arseholeland, with apologists saying that it's our fault for intervening/not intervening (cross off as appropriate).
I'm not trying to be an apologist, especially not for terrorists. My opposition stems from the fact that I'm tired of simple solutions for complex problems. There are a plethora of factors at play here. Singling out one arbitrarily and trying to deal with it is not going to give us a solution. Especially as singling out isn't conducted under any logical standards but is influenced by cultural stereotypes and biases.
Like we're discussing cancer, and someone says "let's stop eating bacon" and then someone "no, we should ban all cars", and then proceed to argue who's right. Both (unhealthy diet and air pollution) have an effect on ones chances to get cancer, but even if both solutions were applied, people would still get cancer.
So, we need try for a more comprehensive solution, realize that it will take a long time for it to take effect and even then won't rid the world of terrorism completely. We also take into account which possible solutions are unacceptable due to our values. For instance Americans hold their right to bear arms in high regard. That means they will have to deal much more often with some kids going to their grandad's arsenal, borrowing a bunch of military weapons and go on a killing spree in their own school.
Another primary source on why ISIS hates the west, as opposed to your high horse theoretical moralism. I'll link to a secondary article, but you can google the mag itself. The original is the official ISIS mag.
Yup, even if we were to stop intervening in the middle east, they would still hate us and find reason to attack us (NB. An act of terrorism? Most definitely. Muslims have been commanded to terrorize the disbelieving enemies of Allah."). So the only way to satisfactorily accommodate them is to convert to the ISIS-brand of Islam. Do the moralists still think we're not sufficiently accommodating them?
I have no reason to doubt the contents of the article, but I see two major issues with your conclusion.
1) You're equating propaganda with policy. If that were true, we'd see terrorist attacks in Lima, Caracas and Quito with the same frequency as we see attacks in Paris, London and Berlin.
2) You're equating Muslims and Isis. That makes no sense. It's a logical fallacy. Steve is evil -> Steve is a man -> all men are evil. It simply doesn't follow.
Pannonian
05-27-2017, 22:23
I'm not trying to be an apologist, especially not for terrorists. My opposition stems from the fact that I'm tired of simple solutions for complex problems. There are a plethora of factors at play here. Singling out one arbitrarily and trying to deal with it is not going to give us a solution. Especially as singling out isn't conducted under any logical standards but is influenced by cultural stereotypes and biases.
Like we're discussing cancer, and someone says "let's stop eating bacon" and then someone "no, we should ban all cars", and then proceed to argue who's right. Both (unhealthy diet and air pollution) have an effect on ones chances to get cancer, but even if both solutions were applied, people would still get cancer.
So, we need try for a more comprehensive solution, realize that it will take a long time for it to take effect and even then won't rid the world of terrorism completely. We also take into account which possible solutions are unacceptable due to our values. For instance Americans hold their right to bear arms in high regard. That means they will have to deal much more often with some kids going to their grandad's arsenal, borrowing a bunch of military weapons and go on a killing spree in their own school.
I have no reason to doubt the contents of the article, but I see two major issues with your conclusion.
1) You're equating propaganda with policy. If that were true, we'd see terrorist attacks in Lima, Caracas and Quito with the same frequency as we see attacks in Paris, London and Berlin.
2) You're equating Muslims and Isis. That makes no sense. It's a logical fallacy. Steve is evil -> Steve is a man -> all men are evil. It simply doesn't follow.
If you reckon I'm approaching this in too simplistic a manner, then note what Haras Rafiq says in that video I posted. You're illustrating his point, as are the other apologists. There is a simple paradigmatic first step which you and others avoid, as he notes many people do.
Montmorency
05-27-2017, 22:36
1) You're equating propaganda with policy. If that were true, we'd see terrorist attacks in Lima, Caracas and Quito with the same frequency as we see attacks in Paris, London and Berlin.
You can't really say so on the basis. South America would be a difficult operating environment (they would have to build it from scratch) and neither allied Muslims nor Europeans would be too impressed to see a soldier of God gunning down Quechuan villagers. What's the payoff?
Importantly, attacks in Europe by Al Qaeda and ISIS footsoldiers can be counted on one's fingers, while in North Africa they take place with regularity, because North Africa is the most natural operating environment, logistically and culturally. Meanwhile, local groups throughout Africa and Asia have conducted attacks on non-Muslims in their regions for years.
Don't get me wrong - the current security situation is lax enough that the first attacks could be fairly devastating, since Latin American states are not oriented toward that threat. Yet I don't see any incentive for Islamists to branch into Latin America, or any endogenous support base they can work with to do so. Cartels vs. Islamists then would be a nice prospect, if the two weren't busy doing illicit commerce with each other.
Pannonian
05-27-2017, 22:43
You can't really say so on the basis. South America would be a difficult operating environment (they would have to build it from scratch) and neither allied Muslims nor Europeans would be too impressed to see a soldier of God gunning down Quechuan villagers. What's the payoff?
Importantly, attacks in Europe by Al Qaeda and ISIS footsoldiers can be counted on one's fingers, while in North Africa they take place with regularity, because North Africa is the most natural operating environment, logistically and culturally. Meanwhile, local groups throughout Africa and Asia have conducted attacks on non-Muslims in their regions for years.
Don't get me wrong - the current security situation is lax enough that the first attacks could be fairly devastating, since Latin American states are not oriented toward that threat. Yet I don't see any incentive for Islamists to branch into Latin America, or any endogenous support base they can work with to do so. Cartels vs. Islamists then would be a nice prospect, if the two weren't busy doing illicit commerce with each other.
See Haras Rafiq's primary point in that video.
Gilrandir
05-28-2017, 05:54
Steve is evil -> Steve is a man -> all men are evil. It simply doesn't follow.
It is about time to realize it.
Seamus Fermanagh
05-28-2017, 05:59
No. Muslim kids will suffer discrimination and bullying because they are Muslims. And every time anti-Muslim hysteria rises, they're gonna suffer more of it.
Then they will come home, turn on the tv and there will be panel of experts discussing how Muslim are dangerous, how they can never be integrated, how they need to be force converted, expelled, imprisoned, tortured etc... They will then move on to internet and find even more abuse, comparing them with rats and hyenas, explaining how they are subhumans, barbaric, encounter suggestions that Muslims should be cleansed from one or more places, hashtags #killallmuslims and so on.
Not that easy to accept your new nation as a home.
Fun facts:
1) 60% of Muslim in the UK witnessed or experienced discrimination against Muslims in 2015
2) 63% experienced subtle discrimination, where they were talked down to, called stupid or had their opinions minimised or devalued.
3) More than 50% said they've been overlooked, ignored or denied service in restaurants, transports and public offices.
4) 75% said they've experienced strangers staring at them.
None of this really excuses mass murder, of course, but let's stop pretending everything is fine and dandy.
According to many of my students of African descent, they cope with the same exact....stuff.....from many whites in the USA, and at about the same percentages. They become political activists and sometimes get involved in riots. They do not blow up crowded markets or youth concerts.
Sarmatian
05-28-2017, 09:23
You can't really say so on the basis. South America would be a difficult operating environment (they would have to build it from scratch) and neither allied Muslims nor Europeans would be too impressed to see a soldier of God gunning down Quechuan villagers. What's the payoff?
Exactly. If your decision making process is influenced by payoff, it means there's a logical process behind it. If it weren't they'd be killing all Christians everywhere in the world indiscriminately.
Or, if you want another example - Russia was not a target for the Middle Eastern terrorists prior to their involvement in Syria. After that, they've had a few attacks. Likewise, Caucasus Muslims performed regular terrorist attacks in Russia but were almost completely avoiding western European countries.
According to many of my students of African descent, they cope with the same exact....stuff.....from many whites in the USA, and at about the same percentages. They become political activists and sometimes get involved in riots. They do not blow up crowded markets or youth concerts.
Not nearly to the same extent.
I'm not offering an excuse for the attack, or saying it is UK's fault. I was just refuting the idea that Muslims have it so good in UK.
In this case, an argument could be made that it is UK's fault, not because the way Muslim are treated in the country, but because of their intervention in Libya, but even that is a stretch.
According to that article, Abedi was a seriously damaged individual.
Pannonian
05-28-2017, 09:57
Exactly. If your decision making process is influenced by payoff, it means there's a logical process behind it. If it weren't they'd be killing all Christians everywhere in the world indiscriminately.
Or, if you want another example - Russia was not a target for the Middle Eastern terrorists prior to their involvement in Syria. After that, they've had a few attacks. Likewise, Caucasus Muslims performed regular terrorist attacks in Russia but were almost completely avoiding western European countries.
Not nearly to the same extent.
I'm not offering an excuse for the attack, or saying it is UK's fault. I was just refuting the idea that Muslims have it so good in UK.
In this case, an argument could be made that it is UK's fault, not because the way Muslim are treated in the country, but because of their intervention in Libya, but even that is a stretch.
According to that article, Abedi was a seriously damaged individual.
And that argument is refuted by ISIS itself, who emphasise that the foreign intervention argument is largely irrelevant. See Haras Rafiq for the principle point of the problem.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-28-2017, 11:16
Not nearly to the same extent.
I'm not offering an excuse for the attack, or saying it is UK's fault. I was just refuting the idea that Muslims have it so good in UK.
In this case, an argument could be made that it is UK's fault, not because the way Muslim are treated in the country, but because of their intervention in Libya, but even that is a stretch.
According to that article, Abedi was a seriously damaged individual.
I would say that Blacks in the US probably have it much worse than Muslims in the UK. Anti-Muslim prejudice (as opposed to general British racism) is a very modern thing, essentially post 9/11, a lot of it comes out of early statements made by the Muslim Council of Great Britain which essentially refused to condemn fellow Muslims. This reticence did eventually break down, largely I think as the MCB was taken over by a younger generation. Nonetheless it has left the impression that most Muslims will not turn against "fellow Muslims" to protect non-Muslims from terrorism.
The prejudice is one born of recent experience, not a long-nursed hatred.
Pannonian
05-28-2017, 11:28
I would say that Blacks in the US probably have it much worse than Muslims in the UK. Anti-Muslim prejudice (as opposed to general British racism) is a very modern thing, essentially post 9/11, a lot of it comes out of early statements made by the Muslim Council of Great Britain which essentially refused to condemn fellow Muslims. This reticence did eventually break down, largely I think as the MCB was taken over by a younger generation. Nonetheless it has left the impression that most Muslims will not turn against "fellow Muslims" to protect non-Muslims from terrorism.
The prejudice is one born of recent experience, not a long-nursed hatred.
The primary problem is as Haras Rafiq describes, and it extends to non-Muslims with corollary problematic results. The problem is that Muslims are practicing a form of Islam. That's the primary problem. A related problem is when people refuse to recognise this, with the corollary problem that it makes it easier for Muslims to deny that this is the problem. If you look everywhere else but that to avoid recognising that it is a Muslim problem and deriving from Islam, then it makes it easier for Muslims, who are the source of the problem and the only long term solution to the problem, to avoid recognising it.
The primary problem is as Haras Rafiq describes, and it extends to non-Muslims with corollary problematic results. The problem is that Muslims are practicing a form of Islam.
The what?
Haras Rafiq practices "a form of islam" himself, is he part of the the problem himself? And why would you cite him them?
Surely you mean "a form of islamist salafi jihadist Islam" because that is what Rafiq said.
Pannonian
05-28-2017, 13:18
The what?
Haras Rafiq practices "a form of islam" himself, is he part of the the problem himself? And why would you cite him them?
Surely you mean "a form of islamist salafi jihadist Islam" because that is what Rafiq said.
And another example of that non-Muslim problem he talked about.
Sarmatian
05-28-2017, 13:49
The primary problem is as Haras Rafiq describes, and it extends to non-Muslims with corollary problematic results. The problem is that Muslims are practicing a form of Islam. That's the primary problem. A related problem is when people refuse to recognise this, with the corollary problem that it makes it easier for Muslims to deny that this is the problem. If you look everywhere else but that to avoid recognising that it is a Muslim problem and deriving from Islam, then it makes it easier for Muslims, who are the source of the problem and the only long term solution to the problem, to avoid recognising it.
It is very dangerous to go down this road, because once you reach the conclusion that Muslims are the problem, a conclusion "no Muslims - no problems" isn't very far away.
It is a problem of perverted interpretation of Islamic teachings. Many Christian African countries treat gays appallingly - incarcerations, torture, murder. They cite Christian doctrine as the reason and justification. Why are people afraid to say that the problem is in the Christianity itself? We can't move on until we accept that. Ethiopia is predominantly a Christian country, yet Female Genital Mutilation is widespread there - when are we going to admit that Christianity is the problem?
If anyone would say that, people would assume he's crazy. Because it is Christianity. But Islam is okay. Lump them all together. It doesn't matter it's less than 0.01%. Islam is at fault and they are all dangerous.
Pannonian
05-28-2017, 14:09
It is very dangerous to go down this road, because once you reach the conclusion that Muslims are the problem, a conclusion "no Muslims - no problems" isn't very far away.
It is a problem of perverted interpretation of Islamic teachings. Many Christian African countries treat gays appallingly - incarcerations, torture, murder. They cite Christian doctrine as the reason and justification. Why are people afraid to say that the problem is in the Christianity itself? We can't move on until we accept that. Ethiopia is predominantly a Christian country, yet Female Genital Mutilation is widespread there - when are we going to admit that Christianity is the problem?
If anyone would say that, people would assume he's crazy. Because it is Christianity. But Islam is okay. Lump them all together. It doesn't matter it's less than 0.01%. Islam is at fault and they are all dangerous.
Why don't you listen to his comments? His group is as close as you'll get to a modernist Muslim think tank in the UK. His comments are backed up by the official ISIS mouthpiece that I quoted from, that addresses the arguments being made by the moralists here and elsewhere. You're making theoretical arguments that evade the primary evidence and arguments from experts.
And about the Ethiopia thing: there's a name (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism) for your argument.
Montmorency
05-28-2017, 15:37
Exactly. If your decision making process is influenced by payoff, it means there's a logical process behind it. If it weren't they'd be killing all Christians everywhere in the world indiscriminately.
But why? Even if they did have an ambition to attack Christians indiscriminately - even if this were their only ambition, which they don't claim it to be - far better to do so in Africa and Eurasia than South America. Their stated principle does not oblige them to evenly distribute attacks geographically or by population.
And another example of that non-Muslim problem he talked about.
You don't seem to get either his or my argument yourself. Sad!
Where exactly does he beg you to throw him out of the country because he practices a form of Islam?
Sarmatian
05-28-2017, 16:55
Why don't you listen to his comments? His group is as close as you'll get to a modernist Muslim think tank in the UK. His comments are backed up by the official ISIS mouthpiece that I quoted from, that addresses the arguments being made by the moralists here and elsewhere. You're making theoretical arguments that evade the primary evidence and arguments from experts.
It is quite a stretch to call a magazine primary evidence and take it at face value, because it just as well could be propaganda. You wouldn't take Soviet official explanation for intervention Afghanistan, or Russian for intervention in Syria or American for intervention in Panama.
But let's put that aside, and say you're right. ISIS is interested in fighting west regardless of what west does. West is blameless. You're still committing a logical fallacy of equating Muslims with ISIS.
And about the Ethiopia thing: there's a name (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism) for your argument.
That doesn't apply here for several reasons:
1) I'm not a Muslim
2) I'm not trying to divert attention from the initial argument
3) That fallacy makes no sense in this case because it doesn't deal with accuracy or truthfulness of statements, only whether the initial statement was answered or whataboutism was employed. If two wife beaters argue and the first one says "you're a wife beater" and the second one answers with "you're a wife beater", the second one is guilty of this particular logical fallacy. Still doesn't change the fact that they're both wife beaters.
Pannonian
05-28-2017, 17:14
It is quite a stretch to call a magazine primary evidence and take it at face value, because it just as well could be propaganda. You wouldn't take Soviet official explanation for intervention Afghanistan, or Russian for intervention in Syria or American for intervention in Panama.
But let's put that aside, and say you're right. ISIS is interested in fighting west regardless of what west does. West is blameless. You're still committing a logical fallacy of equating Muslims with ISIS.
That doesn't apply here for several reasons:
1) I'm not a Muslim
2) I'm not trying to divert attention from the initial argument
3) That fallacy makes no sense in this case because it doesn't deal with accuracy or truthfulness of statements, only whether the initial statement was answered or whataboutism was employed. If two wife beaters argue and the first one says "you're a wife beater" and the second one answers with "you're a wife beater", the second one is guilty of this particular logical fallacy. Still doesn't change the fact that they're both wife beaters.
Have you listened to the comments from Rafiq? You take exception to equating Muslims with ISIS. Listen to his comments then. Like I said, his group is as close as you'll get to a modernist Muslim think tank in the UK, and one that has had the ear of the PM in the past. What about him do you think lacks credibility? If he doesn't lack credibility, why don't you address his argument?
You don't seem to get either his or my argument yourself. Sad!
Where exactly does he beg you to throw him out of the country because he practices a form of Islam?
And Husar, as is typical of him, busily constructs his straw man.
Pannonian
05-28-2017, 17:16
But why? Even if they did have an ambition to attack Christians indiscriminately - even if this were their only ambition, which they don't claim it to be - far better to do so in Africa and Eurasia than South America. Their stated principle does not oblige them to evenly distribute attacks geographically or by population.
The official ISIS rag states that our liberalism is one of the main reasons why they attack us, and will continue attacking us (explicitly refuting the possibility that our foreign policies may substantially contribute to our status as targets). And Sarmatian dismisses their official comments by saying it could be propaganda, and thus his own argument, unfounded on primary evidence, should prevail.
Montmorency
05-28-2017, 17:37
Have you listened to the comments from Rafiq? You take exception to equating Muslims with ISIS. Listen to his comments then. Like I said, his group is as close as you'll get to a modernist Muslim think tank in the UK, and one that has had the ear of the PM in the past. What about him do you think lacks credibility? If he doesn't lack credibility, why don't you address his argument?
What do you think his argument is, exactly? Are you referring to something other than the posted interview?
The official ISIS rag states that our liberalism is one of the main reasons why they attack us, and will continue attacking us (explicitly refuting the possibility that our foreign policies may substantially contribute to our status as targets). And Sarmatian dismisses their official comments by saying it could be propaganda, and thus his own argument, unfounded on primary evidence, should prevail.
You are right in the sense that IS is founded upon the premise of direct war with - well, everyone, but particularly Europe and America.
But IS isn't the only organization out there, and while IS has been bleeding out in their blaze of glory, Al Qaeda is calmly expanding to fill whatever vacuum will remain. Their Long War/Management of Savagery (https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pdffiles/PUB877.pdf) doctrine may prove more worrisome than IS' blunt approach, since it is specifically designed to subvert and manipulate Western foreign policies.
Pannonian
05-28-2017, 18:03
What do you think his argument is, exactly? Are you referring to something other than the posted interview?
You are right in the sense that IS is founded upon the premise of direct war with - well, everyone, but particularly Europe and America.
But IS isn't the only organization out there, and while IS has been bleeding out in their blaze of glory, Al Qaeda is calmly expanding to fill whatever vacuum will remain. Their Long War/Management of Savagery (https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pdffiles/PUB877.pdf) doctrine may prove more worrisome than IS' blunt approach, since it is specifically designed to subvert and manipulate Western foreign policies.
Rafiq's argument is that, until we recognise that this is a Muslim problem founded on Muslims practicing a form of Islam, then we'll never get anywhere towards finding a lasting solution, as it allows Muslims (and he's talking about the UK here, as his group is only concerned with Muslims in the UK) to ignore that fundamental problem. Non-Muslim attempts to excuse Muslims from this gives Muslims the excuse they want to say that this is none of their business. What ISIS represents isn't something that isn't really Islam. It is founded on something that is part of Islam, and history shows that Muslims can readily turn to that. That's not them not being Muslims; them joining or supporting ISIS is indeed Muslim, and denying it makes it easier to deny the problem and allow the problem to persist.
His group's stated challenge is to find a way for Muslims in Britain to be part of Britain. So Sarmatian's and Husar's jibes about wanting to deport Muslims are wide of the mark.
Sarmatian
05-28-2017, 19:43
Have you listened to the comments from Rafiq?
No, I must have missed that post. A link?
And Sarmatian dismisses their official comments by saying it could be propaganda, and thus his own argument, unfounded on primary evidence, should prevail.
Would you accept Russian official comments on their involvement in Ukraine as readily as you accepted this? We have an entire system in place that checks and rechecks "official statements" of our own politicians, precisely because we know we mustn't take them at face value.
If you don't like the Russian example, take Kurdish terrorists. They're targeting Turkey, not Austria.
Like it or not, there's a political goal tied to terrorist attacks. That doesn't mean there aren't some moral (from their point of view) reasons as well, but they're not 100% irrational as presented by you (and almost all of western media). So, yes, I'm taking that particular story with a grain of salt.
Pannonian
05-28-2017, 20:08
No, I must have missed that post. A link?
Would you accept Russian official comments on their involvement in Ukraine as readily as you accepted this? We have an entire system in place that checks and rechecks "official statements" of our own politicians, precisely because we know we mustn't take them at face value.
If you don't like the Russian example, take Kurdish terrorists. They're targeting Turkey, not Austria.
Like it or not, there's a political goal tied to terrorist attacks. That doesn't mean there aren't some moral (from their point of view) reasons as well, but they're not 100% irrational as presented by you (and almost all of western media). So, yes, I'm taking that particular story with a grain of salt.
If we're talking about why ISIS attack the west, are we then to ignore what ISIS say, and instead generate our own explanation independent of anything they say? See my numerous posts about the increased tendency to dismiss primary sources close to the subject as biased, in favour of another narrative that one prefers.
And Husar, as is typical of him, busily constructs his straw man.
What strawman? You keep insinuating that I'm trying to shift blame from muslims in general just because he said islamism is the root problem.
I got that he thinks muslim communities should do more and westerners should not say "it has nothing to do with Islam" or "terrorists are not muslims". What you don't seem to grasp is that I never said that and yet you keep accusing me of doing it. You're still acting like a broken record.
You said it would be ideal to throw out all muslims but at least all muslims immigration should be stopped. You use Rafiq to support your point, so where does he agree with you on that? If you're merely trying to prove that Islam is part of the problem, then you're just Captain Obvious fighting windmills.
Montmorency
05-28-2017, 20:19
If we're talking about why ISIS attack the west, are we then to ignore what ISIS say, and instead generate our own explanation independent of anything they say? See my numerous posts about the increased tendency to dismiss primary sources close to the subject as biased, in favour of another narrative that one prefers.
It's pretty clear Sarmatian is saying that primary sources need context and complementary investigation to be best utilized, something I hope you don't wish to dispute.
Pannonian
05-28-2017, 20:25
It's pretty clear Sarmatian is saying that primary sources need context and complementary investigation to be best utilized, something I hope you don't wish to dispute.
When we're talking about motives, what better source is there than the horse's mouth?
Pannonian
05-28-2017, 20:32
A couple of questions.
Q: If you dismiss the quoted article as biased ISIS propaganda, how do you determine a better source to explain their motives?
Q: On what grounds do you dismiss what Haras Rafiq has said?
Montmorency
05-28-2017, 20:34
When we're talking about motives, what better source is there than the horse's mouth?
The horse's feet?
Q: If you dismiss the quoted article as biased ISIS propaganda, how do you determine a better source to explain their motives?
You can look at further primary documents, observed actions of the group, reports of defectors, insiders, spies, and other observers (which count as primary sources)...
Am I to understand that you are saying that a single primary source can tell us everything we need or can know about a subject?
Q: On what grounds do you dismiss what Haras Rafiq has said?
I don't see that I have.
Pannonian
05-28-2017, 20:40
The horse's feet?
You can look at further primary documents, observed actions of the group, reports of defectors, insiders, spies, and other observers (which count as primary sources)...
Am I to understand that you are saying that a single primary source can tell us everything we need or can know about a subject?
I don't see that I have.
Do other primary sources contradict that article?
Montmorency
05-28-2017, 20:46
Do other primary sources contradict that article?
I don't see anything contradicting the notion that IS hates "us", but you can't use this document in explaining or studying specific IS actions.
The document as a source is incomplete, not useless. Can't you see the distinction.
Pannonian
05-28-2017, 20:50
I don't see anything contradicting the notion that IS hates "us", but you can't use this document in explaining or studying specific IS actions.
The document as a source is incomplete, not useless. Can't you see the distinction.
But that document specifically addresses a number of points, and one in particular (explicitly emphasised in case we think otherwise), which are still being put forward, including by the leader of the UK's opposition.
"What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.
"The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam."
What other primary sources contradict this? Is this point not being made clear enough?
Montmorency
05-28-2017, 20:56
I repeatedly said that the specific motivation of IS to attack the West existentially is not contradicted.
Please read my words, not your own mind.
Well I got my own mind and I don't think anything will happen
Pannonian
05-28-2017, 21:06
I repeatedly said that the specific motivation of IS to attack the West existentially is not contradicted.
Please read my words, not your own mind.
I hope others will stop pointing to foreign policy as the reason why ISIS attacks the west. Or indeed, any reason except that we're different from how they want us to be, and they won't stop until we follow their prescribed way of life.
Sarmatian
05-28-2017, 23:39
Montmorency explained my position better than I could have, so thank you mate.
I hope others will stop pointing to foreign policy as the reason why ISIS attacks the west.
THE reason, probably not. But A reason surely.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.