General Politics Thread

[lichtgilphead]

I'm not religious, but can remember Pope Francis addressing the International Commission against the Death Penalty in 2015, 

He stated "Today the death penalty is inadmissible, no matter how serious the crime committed" and added "that executing a prisoner can no longer be justified by a society's need to defend itself" 

He also declared that the death penalty "loses all legitimacy" because of the possibility of judicial error, and he said "there is no humane way of killing another person."

I assume that Mr Rees Mogg isn't two-faced enough to support the reintroduction of the death penalty in the  UK, as this would be diametrically opposed to his own church leader's position?

[pandarilla]

If he isn't forcing his ideas on anyone then maybe he shouldn't vote on these issues considering he has an ability to literally enshrine his view in law.

You may think you're being the voice of reason but what you're actually doing is trying to defend a thoroughly reprehensible individual with utterly indefensible views.
BTW using religious 'beliefs' to expound political or moral positions is never justifiable.  Never.

Playing devil's advocate a bit here but why is this so bad?

His religion is part of who he is, and will have an influence on many issues I'm sure. Where do we draw the line? And how do we draw the line? (How do we judge whether or not a person's religion has influenced their view? It's literally impossible to do.)

Surely in a democracy you have to trust the electorate to decide who they want to represent them? It's a far from ideal state of affairs - but there's no better system as far as I can see.

And I'm not defending his views, I'm defending his right to speak on these issues. (There's a good quote that goes along the lines of 'I despise what you have to say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it'. Some old c**t from the American war of independence or something. Granny d remembers that war well I'm sure...)

[NotThePars]

It's not "devil's advocate" you're playing here, call it what it is, homophobe's advocate. And I guess you can assume someone's religion is informing their views when they tell you that it does... Like with Tim Farron for example.

[Granny Danger]

1 minute ago, pandarilla said:

 

 

Playing devil's advocate a bit here but why is this so bad?

His religion is part of who he is, and will have an influence on many issues I'm sure. Where do we draw the line? And how do we draw the line? (How do we judge whether or not a person's religion has influenced their view? It's literally impossible to do.)

Surely in a democracy you have to trust the electorate to decide who they want to represent them? It's a far from ideal state of affairs - but there's no better system as far as I can see.

And I'm not defending his views, I'm defending his right to speak on these issues. (There's a good quote that goes along the lines of 'I despise what you have to say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it'. Some old c**t from the American war of independence or something. Granny d remembers that war well I'm sure...)

 

 

He's perfectly entitled to his opinions and we're perfectly entitled to expose the cuntishness of these opinions.

[pandarilla]

It's not "devil's advocate" you're playing here, call it what it is, homophobe's advocate. And I guess you can assume someone's religion is informing their views when they tell you that it does... Like with Tim Farron for example.

So you're OK as long as they don't tell you?

How can you ever tell?

It's a bit like saying that some super rich MP shouldn't be allowed to vote on issues relating to raising the top rate of tax? What if he admits that he's voting against it for selfish reasons? What if he doesn't?

I don't think religion should play any major part in politics but I also think people should be allowed to elect whoever they bloody well like. He's certainly not hidden his religion, or any of his antiquated views.

Beat him in the argument. Don't try and win the argument by silencing him.

I also note the reference to becoming 'as bad as America'. Is that not a bit ironic since they've got a separation of church and state at the bloody heart of their system?

[ayrmad]

I'm quite sure that most of those that voted for JRM knew who they were voting for and what he stood for, I for one can't be arsed with a society that wants to shut down the opinions of those they don't agree with.

[pandarilla]

It's not "devil's advocate" you're playing here, call it what it is, homophobe's advocate.

Seriously mate, you're better than this.

[NotThePars]

1 minute ago, pandarilla said:

 

So you're OK as long as they don't tell you?

How can you ever tell?

It's a bit like saying that some super rich MP shouldn't be allowed to vote on issues relating to raising the top rate of tax? What if he admits that he's voting against it for selfish reasons? What if he doesn't?

I don't think religion should play any major part in politics but I also think people should be allowed to elect whoever they bloody well like. He's certainly not hidden his religion, or any of his antiquated views.

Beat him in the argument. Don't try and win the argument by silencing him.

I also note the reference to becoming 'as bad as America'. Is that not a bit ironic since they've got a separation of church and state at the bloody heart of their system?
 

 

How can I win the argument when he's never going to see what I say and has infinitely more ability to enact his views on society? Some things should, and I have voiced this repeatedly, kinda be beyond debate and a lot of things already are. We would get even further as a society if we accepted some things as fundamentally correct and stopped fucking wasting time debating them all the time. The existence of climate change or whether gay people are equal to straight people for example. 

 

1 minute ago, pandarilla said:

 

Seriously mate, you're better than this.

 

 

Where's the need to be better than that? It's a bit annoying that people try to soften what they're doing. If you're going to defend a homophobe's beliefs or his right to influence legislatation on behalf of them then accept you're advocating for his beliefs and platform to some extent.

[Granny Danger]

9 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

How can I win the argument when he's never going to see what I say and has infinitely more ability to enact his views on society? Some things should, and I have voiced this repeatedly, kinda be beyond debate and a lot of things already are. We would get even further as a society if we accepted some things as fundamentally correct and stopped fucking wasting time debating them all the time. The existence of climate change or whether gay people are equal to straight people for example. 

 

Yeah.  I hold the position that there's not always two sides to an argument.

 

[strichener]

7 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

Where's the need to be better than that? It's a bit annoying that people try to soften what they're doing. If you're going to defend a homophobe's beliefs or his right to influence legislatation on behalf of them then accept you're advocating for his beliefs and platform to some extent.

Stating that you think someone should be able to state their views and follow their chosen religion does not equate to endorsing either. 

This continual need to shutdown opinions that you disagree with is not conducive to eradicating prejudicial behaviours.

[pandarilla]

I don't know whether he's homophobic or not.

 

He says that he believes that marriage is sacrosanct - and should be between a man and a woman. That's a very common view in our society.

 

I agree with you on this issue but when a large minority of people (we're not talking extremists here) don't agree with you - you can't just move on and consider it done. That's not the way democratic societies work I'm afraid.

 

The key issue in that whole gay marriage debate for me was about the equal rights thing. I didn't see anyone able to argue that gay couples should not be afforded the same legal rights as married couples (without being clearly homophobic).

 

There seemed to be no argument against gay marriage in civil ceremonies (and when the church was in favour). But should churches be forced to conduct gay marriages against their wishes? That was always the sticking point - and I'm not sure it's absolutely black and white.

 

 

 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

I think JRM's opinions are influenced by more than his religion.

Being a Catholic does not make you a bigot - hell if we are going to apply that standard then most religious people would be classed as bigots.

[Granny Danger]

13 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

I don't know whether he's homophobic or not.

 

He says that he believes that marriage is sacrosanct - and should be between a man and a woman. That's a very common view in our society.

 

I agree with you on this issue but when a large minority of people (we're not talking extremists here) don't agree with you - you can't just move on and consider it done. That's not the way democratic societies work I'm afraid.

 

The key issue in that whole gay marriage debate for me was about the equal rights thing. I didn't see anyone able to argue that gay couples should not be afforded the same legal rights as married couples (without being clearly homophobic).

 

There seemed to be no argument against gay marriage in civil ceremonies (and when the church was in favour). But should churches be forced to conduct gay marriages against their wishes? That was always the sticking point - and I'm not sure it's absolutely black and white.

 

 

 

Are you trolling?  There's lots of abhorrent views that are very common in our society.

[pandarilla]

Are you trolling?  There's lots of abhorrent views that are very common in our society.

If they're very common in our society (30-40 odd percent) then by definition they can't be described as extremists?

[Jeff Venom]

  

In fact in many societies and cultures across the world, and many periods of history to hold the view that individuals should be free to abort unborn children may be considered "extreme". However, you and most others on here are so arrogant as to believe that after hundreds of thousands of years of human development that you have been lucky enough to have been born into the one society and age that has managed to crack all the world's moral conundrums.

 

 

The seethe in this is unreal.

You're right, we are lucky.

It's really not arrogant to believe that, on this issue, a woman should be allowed to decide what is best for her, her body, her family, her unborn child, especially through non-consensual sex.

If anything it's the opposite - it's arrogant of people with this mindset because it's not been an extreme view to hold for hundreds (of thousands) of years across the world that it can't be seen as extreme in 2017 (to be anti-abortion).

So f**k?

[ayrmad]

26 minutes ago, Jeff Venom said:

 

The seethe in this is unreal.

You're right, we are lucky.

It's really not arrogant to believe that, on this issue, a woman should be allowed to decide what is best for her, her body, her family, her unborn child, especially through non-consensual sex.

If anything it's the opposite - it's arrogant of people with this mindset because it's not been an extreme view to hold for hundreds (of thousands) of years across the world that it can't be seen as extreme in 2017 (to be anti-abortion).

So f**k?

Do those that are pro abortion/choice actually allow females to make their own decisions?

[Jeff Venom]

Do those that are pro abortion/choice actually allow females to make their own decisions?

Not sure what you're getting at.

[Jmothecat2]

I wish Aung San Suu Kyi had stuck to her principles as the interpretation of the "greater good" can be very subjective.  Just ask the Rohingya.
At least if you stick to your principles people know what they are getting, bouncing around from the latest "good idea" (read popular) to the next is why we have such dire politics.

I somehow missed this but you are actually trying to create some sort of equivalence between opposition to people who are openly opposed to abortion from being touted for PM of the U.K. with the horrors going on in Myanmar? You know that's not what the discussion was about so why bother? Like seriously your argument style is an absolute illogical mess and it's pretty clear you know what you are doing, because it is all you do on this site, all I'm wondering is why?

[Baxter Parp]

It's only "forced" if she was impregnated against her will you utter hysterical fool. Where does your cut off point lie then when an abortion should be permitted? Presumably you don't think a woman should be allowed to abort a child at 8 months in- so are you into "forced pregnancy" if you don't allow it in the final 4 weeks?

Utter desperation to tar anyone who doesn't believe in aborting kids as some form of extremist nutcase when in reality the overwhelming majority of the population always have been and probably always will be, at best, uncomfortable with it.

He included rape victims. Also, if you don't want to be pregnant and can't get an abortion, it's forced. Also, f**k you.

[Baxter Parp]

Based on what? Voting against gay marriage? So that's it. He's been labelled as an "ist" or "phobe" for not wholeheartedly conforming to some modern day liberal shibboleth so everything he ever says or does should be disregarded?

It's not a modern day shibboleth it's normal every day life.