domjg
Member
Posts: 5,124
|
Post by domjg on Dec 30, 2021 23:13:33 GMT
I’d love someone who self declares as ‘socially conservative’ to spell out exactly what that’s supposed to mean in Britain in 2021. I honestly can’t think it could be anything other than a desire to impose your own outdated mores on others by discriminating against their sexual/reproductive or religious freedoms or simply because of their origins but pray do enlighten us.
|
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Dec 30, 2021 23:30:26 GMT
I’d love someone who self declares as ‘socially conservative’ to spell out exactly what that’s supposed to mean in Britain in 2021. I honestly can’t think it could be anything other than a desire to impose your own outdated mores on others by discriminating against their sexual/reproductive or religious freedoms or simply because of their origins but pray do enlighten us. This is a perfect example of what right wing commentators would call a 'woke' viewpoint. Socially conservative simply means being in favour of traditional values, standards and behaviours that have been considered normal and acceptable in our society for many decades. What might seem outdated for you is not for others. I disagree with Graham's view of Truss being a factor in whether she is suitable for performing her role, but I agree with him that adulterous behaviour is reprehensible, if nothing else for the simple reason that it undermines one's marital vow. If adultery should become normal, why bother to even marry? Libertarians are people who want as much freedom as possible for themselves, even if this means disrespecting the values and freedoms of others. |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,124
|
Post by domjg on Dec 30, 2021 23:36:52 GMT
I’m a few days late on this one but I’m confused by some posters who seem to see Brexit as part of an anti globalisation move towards a more protectionist/interventionist economic model when we were in a single, large, highly protective market that would have served us very well in a world divided into protectionist camps. In the same breath as decrying the terrible impact on the working class of polish plumbers some of them seem to advocate us joining the trans Pacific partnership which is about as globalist as it gets. I strongly suspect there is no practical logic here but that this is mainly driven by an English exceptionaliist desire to be a bigger fish in a smaller pond where they feel they might get the respect they felt was lacking from those uppity, inferiority complex inducing Europeans with all their annoying competence. 😉
|
|
|
|
Post by graham on Dec 30, 2021 23:37:30 GMT
No - but I have never been a fan of 'the permissive society'. My nonconformist background makes me socially pretty conservative on certain issues - though I have never voted Tory and very unlikely to do so. I am pretty socially conservative myself but I don't see how someone's sexual behaviour affects their ability to do their job. I take the view that a man / woman who betrays his/her wife/husband should not be trusted with the affairs of the state. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Dec 30, 2021 23:44:51 GMT
tancred - "Scotland cannot simply declare independence and break off without the consent of HM government and thereby also HM The Queen." That's total nonsense. Scotland can decide to do whatever it likes. What you might be thinking of is whether there is a recourse in UK constitutional law for Scotland to decide it's status unilaterally, without reference to the UK government. There isn't, but then, if Scotland freely decides that the UK constitution doesn't apply to it, that settles that particular problem. As ever in these matters, it is first a issue of the law under any given legal system, and then an issue of whether that legal system is still recognised as valid, and after that, simple politics. Anything can happen if the citizens of a nation so decide. What you are saying is utter nonsense. Rhodesia, not even part of the UK at the time, just a colony, declared UDI in 1966 illegally. The British government imposed sanctions and considered military force to overthrow the Smith government and restore legitimate government. It would have been fully entitled to do so. Similarly, if Scotland declared independence unilaterally the British government would be entitled to depose the Scottish government and restore direct rule from Westminster. Scotland is not legally a nation because a nation can only be defined as such if it is recognised in international law. The fact that Scotland has a national football team or rugby team means nothing - in the same way, the Ukraine and Belarus were not nations until 1991 when Yeltsin granted them the right to become independent following the collapse of the USSR. UDI actually occurred in November 1965. I have often wondered what legitimacy the very existence of the Smith regime had in 1965. It was surely the product of a policy of colonisation many decades earlier - a policy which was perhaps little different to Germany's attempt to colonise much of Eastern Europe in the early 1940s. |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,124
|
Post by domjg on Dec 30, 2021 23:47:50 GMT
I’d love someone who self declares as ‘socially conservative’ to spell out exactly what that’s supposed to mean in Britain in 2021. I honestly can’t think it could be anything other than a desire to impose your own outdated mores on others by discriminating against their sexual/reproductive or religious freedoms or simply because of their origins but pray do enlighten us. This is a perfect example of what right wing commentators would call a 'woke' viewpoint. Socially conservative simply means being in favour of traditional values, standards and behaviours that have been considered normal and acceptable in our society for many decades. What might seem outdated for you is not for others. I disagree with Graham's view of Truss being a factor in whether she is suitable for performing her role, but I agree with him that adulterous behaviour is reprehensible, if nothing else for the simple reason that it undermines one's marital vow. If adultery should become normal, why bother to even marry? Libertarians are people who want as much freedom as possible for themselves, even if this means disrespecting the values and freedoms of others. Ah so as I suspected ‘disrespecting the values of others’ by being themselves is a more heinous crime than discriminating against people based on who they are. I’d love you to list what these ‘traditional values’ are and what practices that are parts of other’s lives and which are no business of yours that you object to? I’m sure that would sound a lot less mealy mouthed.. perhaps we should bring back stoning for adultery what do you think? As for Graham’s comments on the ‘permissive society’ what he means of course is anything he finds ‘not permissible’ for him as if he were lord of all.. |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,124
|
Post by domjg on Dec 30, 2021 23:51:02 GMT
Apparently ‘woke’ as an insult can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean (no need for pesky definitions obviously). I’ve never thought of myself as ‘woke’ but if it just means common respect and decency then count me in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2021 23:51:33 GMT
Not sure if this was posted but an interesting finding from YG (see the second part of the tweet):
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 30, 2021 23:51:38 GMT
I’d love someone who self declares as ‘socially conservative’ to spell out exactly what that’s supposed to mean in Britain in 2021. I honestly can’t think it could be anything other than a desire to impose your own outdated mores on others by discriminating against their sexual/reproductive or religious freedoms or simply because of their origins but pray do enlighten us. What about cases where someone's religious beliefs discriminate against someone else's sexual freedom? e.g. The Christian churches still frown on extra-marital affairs I believe, and some elements of Muslim communities go further, by having forced marriages etc. |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Dec 30, 2021 23:56:15 GMT
I am pretty socially conservative myself but I don't see how someone's sexual behaviour affects their ability to do their job. I take the view that a man / woman who betrays his/her wife/husband should not be trusted with the affairs of the state. On this point I disagree because personal affairs and state affairs are utterly different. It's apples and oranges. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Dec 31, 2021 0:01:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Dec 31, 2021 0:03:00 GMT
This is a perfect example of what right wing commentators would call a 'woke' viewpoint. Socially conservative simply means being in favour of traditional values, standards and behaviours that have been considered normal and acceptable in our society for many decades. What might seem outdated for you is not for others. I disagree with Graham's view of Truss being a factor in whether she is suitable for performing her role, but I agree with him that adulterous behaviour is reprehensible, if nothing else for the simple reason that it undermines one's marital vow. If adultery should become normal, why bother to even marry? Libertarians are people who want as much freedom as possible for themselves, even if this means disrespecting the values and freedoms of others. Ah so as I suspected ‘disrespecting the values of others’ by being themselves is a more heinous crime than discriminating against people based on who they are. I’d love you to list what these ‘traditional values’ are and what practices that are parts of other’s lives and which are no business of yours that you object to? I’m sure that would sound a lot less mealy mouthed.. perhaps we should bring back stoning for adultery what do you think? As for Graham’s comments on the ‘permissive society’ what he means of course is anything he finds ‘not permissible’ for him as if he were lord of all.. Traditional values are simply those which have been considered normal for most of the 20th century, and ones based on Christian principles. I accept that many out there are not believers, though I feel that these principles transcend religion and are condusive to social cohesion, even from a humanist perspective. Not sure what you mean by 'discriminating against people based on who they are'. Someone who commits adultery unrepentantly, such as Boris Johnson, is behaving wrongly out of choice, not because of 'who he is'. Immoral behaviour is based on your actions, not who you are. Your comment about stoning for adultery is stupid and ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Dec 31, 2021 0:03:18 GMT
I take the view that a man / woman who betrays his/her wife/husband should not be trusted with the affairs of the state. On this point I disagree because personal affairs and state affairs are utterly different. It's apples and oranges. It is not unreasonable to suggest that someone who cannot be trusted in matters which are personal and intimate is not to be trusted in respect of the far more important - though impersonal - issues which arise in the political world. |
|
|
|
Post by statgeek on Dec 31, 2021 0:11:35 GMT
Scotland cannot simply declare independence and break off without the consent of HM government and thereby also HM The Queen. lol |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,124
|
Post by domjg on Dec 31, 2021 0:14:43 GMT
Ah so as I suspected ‘disrespecting the values of others’ by being themselves is a more heinous crime than discriminating against people based on who they are. I’d love you to list what these ‘traditional values’ are and what practices that are parts of other’s lives and which are no business of yours that you object to? I’m sure that would sound a lot less mealy mouthed.. perhaps we should bring back stoning for adultery what do you think? As for Graham’s comments on the ‘permissive society’ what he means of course is anything he finds ‘not permissible’ for him as if he were lord of all.. Traditional values are simply those which have been considered normal for most of the 20th century, and ones based on Christian principles. I accept that many out there are not believers, though I feel that these principles transcend religion and are condusive to social cohesion, even from a humanist perspective. Not sure what you mean by 'discriminating against people based on who they are'. Someone who commits adultery unrepentantly, such as Boris Johnson, is behaving wrongly out of choice, not because of 'who he is'. Immoral behaviour is based on your actions, not who you are. Your comment about stoning for adultery is stupid and ridiculous. Ok let’s cut to the chase. Homosexuality was outlawed until the late sixties in a culture that led to the marginalisation and criminalisation (not to mention great unhappiness) of large numbers of innocent people. Is this a ‘norm’ of the 20th century you’d be happy to return to? Abortion ditto. |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Dec 31, 2021 0:15:00 GMT
I think that in the case of Kosovo there have several factors at play, not least of which was the brutal attempt to enforce ethnic cleansing on the Kosovo province by the Serbian government, and for this reason alone the NATO powers favoured Kosovo's independence. I don't agree with the NATO view because this sets a dangerous precedent that undermines the sovereignty of any nation with a restive minority seeking to break away. I don't believe Kosovo can return to Serbia, but neither do I believe Kosovo should be independent - the best option for that polity is for the Serbian speaking areas to revert to Serbian control and the rest of Kosovo to join Albania. In summary, Kosovo is an unusual case, as was East Timor, because these places were subjected to oppression and ethnic cleansing. There is no ethnic cleansing in Scotland and indeed Scotland was given an opportunity in 2014 to exercise its right to decide its own future - there was no constitutional obligation on HM government to grant such a plebiscite, but it was recognised that the growth of support for independence in Scotland required a democratic decision by the Scottish people. Should the SNP continue to maintain leading support in Scotland I have no doubt that there will eventually be another referendum, and this is all right and proper. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2021 0:19:32 GMT
It might interest some - how confirmation bias work. I was about 10, and the girls in our class performed a dance (they probably also sang). As I was around their preparations, the song and a couple of words stayed with me over almost 50 years. Now, the driving force of the girls were four Greek girls (Hungary was a major recipient of the Greek escapees of the civil war), and the teacher who prepared them for the performance was also Greek. So, I always thought that it was a Greek song (even if Macedonia dominated the song), as most of the escapees were from the North. One of my friends who wants to go public with its AI driven platform asked me to test it. I hummed the song, it was translated to notes, I could change it, and then it came up with the song. And it was the correct one. It has never been Greek (at that point I spoke Hungarian and about 200 Russian worda), but Macedonian. So, be aware of the confirmation bias. m.youtube.com/watch?v=pU2_WW8kxHg&list=RDpU2_WW8kxHg&start_radio=1 |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,124
|
Post by domjg on Dec 31, 2021 0:21:52 GMT
I’d love someone who self declares as ‘socially conservative’ to spell out exactly what that’s supposed to mean in Britain in 2021. I honestly can’t think it could be anything other than a desire to impose your own outdated mores on others by discriminating against their sexual/reproductive or religious freedoms or simply because of their origins but pray do enlighten us. What about cases where someone's religious beliefs discriminate against someone else's sexual freedom? e.g. The Christian churches still frown on extra-marital affairs I believe, and some elements of Muslim communities go further, by having forced marriages etc. I’d like to think we live in a society that affords respect and the benefit of the doubt to all unless given reason not to but we have clear anti-discrimination and anti incitement laws that apply to all and are not just to protect minorities from the dominant culture. If the actions of members of one group have a tangible negative impact on the lives of those of another group or their own group than that is a matter for the law criminal and civil and the offending ‘group’ should be encouraged by the state to deal with the attitudes that gave rise to the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Dec 31, 2021 0:23:32 GMT
Traditional values are simply those which have been considered normal for most of the 20th century, and ones based on Christian principles. I accept that many out there are not believers, though I feel that these principles transcend religion and are condusive to social cohesion, even from a humanist perspective. Not sure what you mean by 'discriminating against people based on who they are'. Someone who commits adultery unrepentantly, such as Boris Johnson, is behaving wrongly out of choice, not because of 'who he is'. Immoral behaviour is based on your actions, not who you are. Your comment about stoning for adultery is stupid and ridiculous. Ok let’s cut to the chase. Homosexuality was outlawed until the late sixties in a culture that led to the marginalisation and criminalisation (not to mention great unhappiness) of large numbers of innocent people. Is this a ‘norm’ of the 20th century you’d be happy to return to? Abortion ditto. No, I do not favour returning to a ban on homosexuality because this was proven to be harmful and counterproductive. However, I also don't approve of politically correct attempts by the media to make homosexuality seem normal or desirable human behaviour, because it is not. Homosexuality reflects the practice of a minority of the population and I respect the rights of gay people, but what I do not welcome is the promotion and publicisation of it. Likewise for abortion I do not favour an outright ban because this leads to backstreet abortions and other unsavoury and criminal practices, however I also respect the life of the unborn child, so I would introduce legislation to limit abortion to the first 12-13 weeks of gestation except when the mother's life is in genuine danger due to the pregnancy. In this day and age there are plenty of ways to prevent pregnancy through contraception, so abortion should rarely be even called for. |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Dec 31, 2021 0:25:28 GMT
On this point I disagree because personal affairs and state affairs are utterly different. It's apples and oranges. It is not unreasonable to suggest that someone who cannot be trusted in matters which are personal and intimate is not to be trusted in respect of the far more important - though impersonal - issues which arise in the political world. I don't see the correlation between the two. I suggest that we agree to disagree on this one. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2021 0:25:29 GMT
I think that in the case of Kosovo there have several factors at play, not least of which was the brutal attempt to enforce ethnic cleansing on the Kosovo province by the Serbian government, and for this reason alone the NATO powers favoured Kosovo's independence. I don't agree with the NATO view because this sets a dangerous precedent that undermines the sovereignty of any nation with a restive minority seeking to break away. I don't believe Kosovo can return to Serbia, but neither do I believe Kosovo should be independent - the best option for that polity is for the Serbian speaking areas to revert to Serbian control and the rest of Kosovo to join Albania. In summary, Kosovo is an unusual case, as was East Timor, because these places were subjected to oppression and ethnic cleansing. There is no ethnic cleansing in Scotland and indeed Scotland was given an opportunity in 2014 to exercise its right to decide its own future - there was no constitutional obligation on HM government to grant such a plebiscite, but it was recognised that the growth of support for independence in Scotland required a democratic decision by the Scottish people. Should the SNP continue to maintain leading support in Scotland I have no doubt that there will eventually be another referendum, and this is all right and proper. You don't understand anything about Kosovo or about the Yugoslavian history and the consequences (or you have an extremely biased interpretation). I think it would be better to leave that example alone. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Dec 31, 2021 0:25:56 GMT
Traditional values are simply those which have been considered normal for most of the 20th century, and ones based on Christian principles. I accept that many out there are not believers, though I feel that these principles transcend religion and are condusive to social cohesion, even from a humanist perspective. Not sure what you mean by 'discriminating against people based on who they are'. Someone who commits adultery unrepentantly, such as Boris Johnson, is behaving wrongly out of choice, not because of 'who he is'. Immoral behaviour is based on your actions, not who you are. Your comment about stoning for adultery is stupid and ridiculous. Ok let’s cut to the chase. Homosexuality was outlawed until the late sixties in a culture that led to the marginalisation and criminalisation (not to mention great unhappiness) of large numbers of innocent people. Is this a ‘norm’ of the 20th century you’d be happy to return to? Abortion ditto. Abortion is more difficult - if only because the issue arises as to at what point the right to life of an as yet unborn child becomes overriding. I am very much in favour of abortion where rape or incest has occurred - and where it might be justified when the mother's life is at risk - but cannot accept it as a form of contraception - beyond the 'morning after pill'. |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Dec 31, 2021 0:37:51 GMT
Ok let’s cut to the chase. Homosexuality was outlawed until the late sixties in a culture that led to the marginalisation and criminalisation (not to mention great unhappiness) of large numbers of innocent people. Is this a ‘norm’ of the 20th century you’d be happy to return to? Abortion ditto. Abortion is more difficult - if only because the issue arises as to at what point the right to life of an as yet unborn child becomes overriding. I am very much in favour of abortion where rape or incest has occurred - and where it might be justified when the mother's life is at risk - but cannot accept it as a form of contraception - beyond the 'morning after pill'. In general, most countries where abortion is legal have a 12 or 13 week limit. The UK has a limit of 24 weeks, which is the highest in the world, without any valid justification other than libertarianism. I agree that incest and genuine danger to the mother's life are sufficient grounds for abortion, however I disagree about rape. Rape is a hideous crime, but a human life should not be terminated because of it. It's not the baby's fault that he/she has been fathered through a rape. |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Dec 31, 2021 0:40:09 GMT
I think that in the case of Kosovo there have several factors at play, not least of which was the brutal attempt to enforce ethnic cleansing on the Kosovo province by the Serbian government, and for this reason alone the NATO powers favoured Kosovo's independence. I don't agree with the NATO view because this sets a dangerous precedent that undermines the sovereignty of any nation with a restive minority seeking to break away. I don't believe Kosovo can return to Serbia, but neither do I believe Kosovo should be independent - the best option for that polity is for the Serbian speaking areas to revert to Serbian control and the rest of Kosovo to join Albania. In summary, Kosovo is an unusual case, as was East Timor, because these places were subjected to oppression and ethnic cleansing. There is no ethnic cleansing in Scotland and indeed Scotland was given an opportunity in 2014 to exercise its right to decide its own future - there was no constitutional obligation on HM government to grant such a plebiscite, but it was recognised that the growth of support for independence in Scotland required a democratic decision by the Scottish people. Should the SNP continue to maintain leading support in Scotland I have no doubt that there will eventually be another referendum, and this is all right and proper. You don't understand anything about Kosovo or about the Yugoslavian history and the consequences (or you have an extremely biased interpretation). I think it would be better to leave that example alone. Well, if you explained your point clearly instead of referring me to official documents it might help! |
|
|
|
Post by thexterminatingdalek on Dec 31, 2021 0:43:28 GMT
How about a separate non-polling-related thread for men to discuss what women should and shouldn't be allowed to do with their bodies?
|
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Dec 31, 2021 0:45:47 GMT
How about a separate non-polling-related thread for men to discuss what women should and shouldn't be able to do with their bodies? Not sure why we ended up in this pointless discussion. Graham started it by banging on about Truss and her personal morality, something I consider irrelevant to politics. People's religious/moral views are their own and debating these leads to an obvious dead end. I suggest we stick to political matters. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 31, 2021 0:49:41 GMT
Abortion is more difficult - if only because the issue arises as to at what point the right to life of an as yet unborn child becomes overriding. I am very much in favour of abortion where rape or incest has occurred - and where it might be justified when the mother's life is at risk - but cannot accept it as a form of contraception - beyond the 'morning after pill'. In general, most countries where abortion is legal have a 12 or 13 week limit. The UK has a limit of 24 weeks, which is the highest in the world, without any valid justification other than libertarianism. I agree that incest and genuine danger to the mother's life are sufficient grounds for abortion, however I disagree about rape. Rape is a hideous crime, but a human life should not be terminated because of it. It's not the baby's fault that he/she has been fathered through a rape. I think that in cases of rape the mother should be free to choose. She may feel that the baby would be a constant reminder of her horrific experience. I do agree that 24 weeks seems very late. Can't some babies survive ex vitrio at that age? (NB to 'woke' people. Sorry I used the word mother. I'm not sure what this week's elaborate circumlocution is.) |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Dec 31, 2021 1:01:37 GMT
Abortion is more difficult - if only because the issue arises as to at what point the right to life of an as yet unborn child becomes overriding. I am very much in favour of abortion where rape or incest has occurred - and where it might be justified when the mother's life is at risk - but cannot accept it as a form of contraception - beyond the 'morning after pill'. In general, most countries where abortion is legal have a 12 or 13 week limit. The UK has a limit of 24 weeks, which is the highest in the world, without any valid justification other than libertarianism. I agree that incest and genuine danger to the mother's life are sufficient grounds for abortion, however I disagree about rape. Rape is a hideous crime, but a human life should not be terminated because of it. It's not the baby's fault that he/she has been fathered through a rape. I cannot agree that a woman who has been a victim of rapre should be expected to carry the foetus to full term - though the evidence of pregnancy should normally be clear at an early stage. |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Dec 31, 2021 1:03:57 GMT
In general, most countries where abortion is legal have a 12 or 13 week limit. The UK has a limit of 24 weeks, which is the highest in the world, without any valid justification other than libertarianism. I agree that incest and genuine danger to the mother's life are sufficient grounds for abortion, however I disagree about rape. Rape is a hideous crime, but a human life should not be terminated because of it. It's not the baby's fault that he/she has been fathered through a rape. I think that in cases of rape the mother should be free to choose. She may feel that the baby would be a constant reminder of her horrific experience. I do agree that 24 weeks seems very late. Can't some babies survive ex vitrio at that age? (NB to 'woke' people. Sorry I used the word mother. I'm not sure what this week's elaborate circumlocution is.) I would have thought that the baby could be given up for adoption if the mother refuses it. I don't agree in principle with treating a human life as a negotiable commodity. The earliest gestation period a baby can survive is 22 weeks, but what is also pertinent is at what gestational age can a foetus feel pain - current scientific literature points to 20 weeks, though some doctors believe this can be some weeks earlier. |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Dec 31, 2021 1:05:05 GMT
In general, most countries where abortion is legal have a 12 or 13 week limit. The UK has a limit of 24 weeks, which is the highest in the world, without any valid justification other than libertarianism. I agree that incest and genuine danger to the mother's life are sufficient grounds for abortion, however I disagree about rape. Rape is a hideous crime, but a human life should not be terminated because of it. It's not the baby's fault that he/she has been fathered through a rape. I cannot agree that a woman who has been a victim of rapre should be expected to carry the foetus to full term - though the evidence of pregnancy should normally be clear at an early stage. Indeed the evidence should be available at an early stage, and therefore well before three months of gestation. |
|
