FPT IshmaelZ Posts: 19,116 3:35PM DavidL said: » show previous quotes To take one very obvious example by the same logic the fact that in almost every culture women have a better life expectancy than men must conclusively prove that society is inherently biased against men and fails to recognise inherent female privilege, that any suggestion that women are disadvantaged or ever have been disadvantaged is a failure to recognise the structual biases that cause men to die at an earlier age.
It is, quite frankly, both mad and depressing.
@IshmaelZ said: So you really think that black people are *biologically* less well able than whites and Asians to be educated so as to become competent doctors, and that there is inherent white privilege here which qwe should just put up with cos there is nothing to be done about it? @DavidL says No, of course I don't. What I do say is that the answer to that problem is to look at the societal issues that result in that under performance and seek to address them. Which is not easy. But the answer is not to appoint doctors who come from a minority who are, bluntly, not up to the rather difficult job.
30 odd years ago someone noticed that sheriffs were male, pale and stale. This, of course, reflected the profession that they had gained the requisite experience in. The answer was to appoint many female sheriffs. In my experience female solicitors, such as my wife, hated this because along with many excellent appointments they also appointed various incompetent female sheriffs who gave female sheriffs a bad name. Of course, they also appointed a lot of seriously incompetent male sheriffs too but they did not stand out so much amongst the profession. Those I spoke to wanted female Sheriffs to be appointed on merit, given a fair and even crack of the whip and an equal chance.
Now, 30 odd years on, the profession is becoming increasingly female dominated as is the bench, albeit 20 years or so behind. The focus now is on whether there are sufficient minorities and we are in danger of making the same mistakes again.
As a society we aspire to true equality of opportunity and rightly so. That means that those who face structural problems, whether of poverty, social breakdown, poor schooling or whatever should indeed be helped but the ideal that all are selected on merit is a really important principle and should not be abandoned, whether for gender or racial reasons.
At what point does law start seeing the same problems as medicine, that encouragement of women to join these professions leads eventually to shortages, as they effectively “retire” in their thirties?
I don't think that it will. The key difference is that it is relatively easy and cheap to train lawyers. We don't need lots of kit or fancy labs. We get books and precedent, pretty much all of which are now available online.
The problem in medicine is that UK plc invests very serious money into training a doctor. If that doctor goes part time for family reasons in his or her 30s we have got a very poor return on that investment. Ditto if they retire in their late 50s because they have maxed out their pensions.
Like I've said before, we should pay doctors less so that they have to work full time to make ends meet and have to keep at it until they reach retirement age. It's not like they are capable of doing something else instead, and there will be no shortage of teenagers [whose parents are] desperate [for them to] get into med school.
Not sure about the last bit of that. Pharmacy pay rates, particularly for locums, dipped markedly with the increase in pharmacy graduates (last 10-15 years with new schools of pharmacy). This made it a lot harder to recruit students, and the ones who did come had on average worse grades. If you degrade doctors pay and conditions too much, you may choke the supply too. If you are a bright kid, there are many high paid careers. Engineering, the city, law, artisanal flint knapping. Medicine is popular not just because of a desire to help people, but because of pay and the chance to retire young(ish) and work part time.
Medicine is popular so that parents can say "My son/daughter is a doctor".
The decline in Foundation Doctors (Interns in America) continuing in training in either hospital specialities or General Practice is quite stark over the last decade.
Some go into research, locums, etc and apply later on but increasingly leave the profession entirely.
Blimey. That's a leaky pipeline. What happened?
Possibly an increase in students. Foxy will know more, but I’m certain there has been an increase in numbers coming through, which may lead to more competition for places/jobs.
@AlexThomp On the plane to NH the night of the Iowa caucuses, Elizabeth Warren said: “Everyone comes up to me and says, ‘I would vote for you, if you had a penis.’”
The FBI raid won't hurt Trump's chances of getting the Republican nomination & it might even help him a lot by energising his supporters.
The people who'll vote for him in the primaries don't really care if he took any documents when he left the White House & they think the raids are politically motivated.
Yes, if he wants to run again the GOP nomination is Trump's for the taking.
If he declines to run again though I would make Pence favourite to be GOP nominee. DeSantis I think will lose his Florida governorship re election attempt in November to Charlie Crist based on the most recent polls.
Pence is also even more pro life than Trump and the darling of evangelical voters and therefore the ideal candidate for the GOP post Trump and post Roe v Wade. Loyal to Trump while respecting the constitution and staunchly in favour of taking as much opportunity to push the new opportunity for the pro life movement in as many states as possible
Pence, in the eyes of the Trump fanatics, failed to stop the steal. They won’t forgive him. I think his path to the nomination is a difficult one.
Against Trump or De Santis yes, absent neither it is there for the taking and evangelical voters would strongly be behind Pence
It seems unlikely to me that there won’t be a Trumpist candidate: Trump himself or De Santis or someone else. For Pence to come through, he needs no-one Trumpier up against him. Ain’t gonna happen.
There are a lot of evangelical voters, but it appears there are even more who think Trump is god.
I think there's a good chance that if Trump Sr doesn't run for some reason, such as his health, then Donald Trump Jr might run & could even get the nomination. The Trump family will not want to easily give up its hold on the GOP.
The Trump family want to be the Kim family.
America would benefit from following part of their example. They need to transfer power to a jong un.
Such a move would imo be il advised.
Why? Are you in favour of the gerontocracy unlike all and sungdry?
@AlexThomp On the plane to NH the night of the Iowa caucuses, Elizabeth Warren said: “Everyone comes up to me and says, ‘I would vote for you, if you had a penis.’”
FPT IshmaelZ Posts: 19,116 3:35PM DavidL said: » show previous quotes To take one very obvious example by the same logic the fact that in almost every culture women have a better life expectancy than men must conclusively prove that society is inherently biased against men and fails to recognise inherent female privilege, that any suggestion that women are disadvantaged or ever have been disadvantaged is a failure to recognise the structual biases that cause men to die at an earlier age.
It is, quite frankly, both mad and depressing.
@IshmaelZ said: So you really think that black people are *biologically* less well able than whites and Asians to be educated so as to become competent doctors, and that there is inherent white privilege here which qwe should just put up with cos there is nothing to be done about it? @DavidL says No, of course I don't. What I do say is that the answer to that problem is to look at the societal issues that result in that under performance and seek to address them. Which is not easy. But the answer is not to appoint doctors who come from a minority who are, bluntly, not up to the rather difficult job.
30 odd years ago someone noticed that sheriffs were male, pale and stale. This, of course, reflected the profession that they had gained the requisite experience in. The answer was to appoint many female sheriffs. In my experience female solicitors, such as my wife, hated this because along with many excellent appointments they also appointed various incompetent female sheriffs who gave female sheriffs a bad name. Of course, they also appointed a lot of seriously incompetent male sheriffs too but they did not stand out so much amongst the profession. Those I spoke to wanted female Sheriffs to be appointed on merit, given a fair and even crack of the whip and an equal chance.
Now, 30 odd years on, the profession is becoming increasingly female dominated as is the bench, albeit 20 years or so behind. The focus now is on whether there are sufficient minorities and we are in danger of making the same mistakes again.
As a society we aspire to true equality of opportunity and rightly so. That means that those who face structural problems, whether of poverty, social breakdown, poor schooling or whatever should indeed be helped but the ideal that all are selected on merit is a really important principle and should not be abandoned, whether for gender or racial reasons.
At what point does law start seeing the same problems as medicine, that encouragement of women to join these professions leads eventually to shortages, as they effectively “retire” in their thirties?
I don't think that it will. The key difference is that it is relatively easy and cheap to train lawyers. We don't need lots of kit or fancy labs. We get books and precedent, pretty much all of which are now available online.
The problem in medicine is that UK plc invests very serious money into training a doctor. If that doctor goes part time for family reasons in his or her 30s we have got a very poor return on that investment. Ditto if they retire in their late 50s because they have maxed out their pensions.
Like I've said before, we should pay doctors less so that they have to work full time to make ends meet and have to keep at it until they reach retirement age. It's not like they are capable of doing something else instead, and there will be no shortage of teenagers [whose parents are] desperate [for them to] get into med school.
Not sure about the last bit of that. Pharmacy pay rates, particularly for locums, dipped markedly with the increase in pharmacy graduates (last 10-15 years with new schools of pharmacy). This made it a lot harder to recruit students, and the ones who did come had on average worse grades. If you degrade doctors pay and conditions too much, you may choke the supply too. If you are a bright kid, there are many high paid careers. Engineering, the city, law, artisanal flint knapping. Medicine is popular not just because of a desire to help people, but because of pay and the chance to retire young(ish) and work part time.
Medicine is popular so that parents can say "My son/daughter is a doctor".
The decline in Foundation Doctors (Interns in America) continuing in training in either hospital specialities or General Practice is quite stark over the last decade.
Some go into research, locums, etc and apply later on but increasingly leave the profession entirely.
Blimey. That's a leaky pipeline. What happened?
Very poor retention at all levels suggests that it isn't an appealing career anymore.
As is customary in these cases, alleged six photos, but only only one available. It’s good, but could be an object thrown into the air and snapped. This story was covered by the recent Craig Charles series, and I wonder if that’s why it’s surfaced now. Certainly intriguing. I don’t buy their story of terror though. I’d be fascinated, not terrified.
My first instinct was something reflecting in a loch.
Good shout. A rock and it’s reflection, plus the plane (reflection only) would work. Certainly no hills to go by.
That aircraft looks like a Hawk or Harrier or Hunter - the last not likely in Scotland in 1990, the first two perfectly acceptable. It's not, I think, the Tornado referred to in the article, though that might just be a journalistic messup.
Terrible picture, but I'm pretty sure that's a Harrier. If you enlarge the image enough the bulges of the intakes are faintly visible, and the wings appear to be mounted too high for a Hawk.
FPT IshmaelZ Posts: 19,116 3:35PM DavidL said: » show previous quotes To take one very obvious example by the same logic the fact that in almost every culture women have a better life expectancy than men must conclusively prove that society is inherently biased against men and fails to recognise inherent female privilege, that any suggestion that women are disadvantaged or ever have been disadvantaged is a failure to recognise the structual biases that cause men to die at an earlier age.
It is, quite frankly, both mad and depressing.
@IshmaelZ said: So you really think that black people are *biologically* less well able than whites and Asians to be educated so as to become competent doctors, and that there is inherent white privilege here which qwe should just put up with cos there is nothing to be done about it? @DavidL says No, of course I don't. What I do say is that the answer to that problem is to look at the societal issues that result in that under performance and seek to address them. Which is not easy. But the answer is not to appoint doctors who come from a minority who are, bluntly, not up to the rather difficult job.
30 odd years ago someone noticed that sheriffs were male, pale and stale. This, of course, reflected the profession that they had gained the requisite experience in. The answer was to appoint many female sheriffs. In my experience female solicitors, such as my wife, hated this because along with many excellent appointments they also appointed various incompetent female sheriffs who gave female sheriffs a bad name. Of course, they also appointed a lot of seriously incompetent male sheriffs too but they did not stand out so much amongst the profession. Those I spoke to wanted female Sheriffs to be appointed on merit, given a fair and even crack of the whip and an equal chance.
Now, 30 odd years on, the profession is becoming increasingly female dominated as is the bench, albeit 20 years or so behind. The focus now is on whether there are sufficient minorities and we are in danger of making the same mistakes again.
As a society we aspire to true equality of opportunity and rightly so. That means that those who face structural problems, whether of poverty, social breakdown, poor schooling or whatever should indeed be helped but the ideal that all are selected on merit is a really important principle and should not be abandoned, whether for gender or racial reasons.
At what point does law start seeing the same problems as medicine, that encouragement of women to join these professions leads eventually to shortages, as they effectively “retire” in their thirties?
I don't think that it will. The key difference is that it is relatively easy and cheap to train lawyers. We don't need lots of kit or fancy labs. We get books and precedent, pretty much all of which are now available online.
The problem in medicine is that UK plc invests very serious money into training a doctor. If that doctor goes part time for family reasons in his or her 30s we have got a very poor return on that investment. Ditto if they retire in their late 50s because they have maxed out their pensions.
Like I've said before, we should pay doctors less so that they have to work full time to make ends meet and have to keep at it until they reach retirement age. It's not like they are capable of doing something else instead, and there will be no shortage of teenagers [whose parents are] desperate [for them to] get into med school.
Not sure about the last bit of that. Pharmacy pay rates, particularly for locums, dipped markedly with the increase in pharmacy graduates (last 10-15 years with new schools of pharmacy). This made it a lot harder to recruit students, and the ones who did come had on average worse grades. If you degrade doctors pay and conditions too much, you may choke the supply too. If you are a bright kid, there are many high paid careers. Engineering, the city, law, artisanal flint knapping. Medicine is popular not just because of a desire to help people, but because of pay and the chance to retire young(ish) and work part time.
Medicine is popular so that parents can say "My son/daughter is a doctor".
The decline in Foundation Doctors (Interns in America) continuing in training in either hospital specialities or General Practice is quite stark over the last decade.
Some go into research, locums, etc and apply later on but increasingly leave the profession entirely.
Blimey. That's a leaky pipeline. What happened?
Possibly an increase in students. Foxy will know more, but I’m certain there has been an increase in numbers coming through, which may lead to more competition for places/jobs.
No, there are lots of unfilled Specialist training posts.
FPT IshmaelZ Posts: 19,116 3:35PM DavidL said: » show previous quotes To take one very obvious example by the same logic the fact that in almost every culture women have a better life expectancy than men must conclusively prove that society is inherently biased against men and fails to recognise inherent female privilege, that any suggestion that women are disadvantaged or ever have been disadvantaged is a failure to recognise the structual biases that cause men to die at an earlier age.
It is, quite frankly, both mad and depressing.
@IshmaelZ said: So you really think that black people are *biologically* less well able than whites and Asians to be educated so as to become competent doctors, and that there is inherent white privilege here which qwe should just put up with cos there is nothing to be done about it? @DavidL says No, of course I don't. What I do say is that the answer to that problem is to look at the societal issues that result in that under performance and seek to address them. Which is not easy. But the answer is not to appoint doctors who come from a minority who are, bluntly, not up to the rather difficult job.
30 odd years ago someone noticed that sheriffs were male, pale and stale. This, of course, reflected the profession that they had gained the requisite experience in. The answer was to appoint many female sheriffs. In my experience female solicitors, such as my wife, hated this because along with many excellent appointments they also appointed various incompetent female sheriffs who gave female sheriffs a bad name. Of course, they also appointed a lot of seriously incompetent male sheriffs too but they did not stand out so much amongst the profession. Those I spoke to wanted female Sheriffs to be appointed on merit, given a fair and even crack of the whip and an equal chance.
Now, 30 odd years on, the profession is becoming increasingly female dominated as is the bench, albeit 20 years or so behind. The focus now is on whether there are sufficient minorities and we are in danger of making the same mistakes again.
As a society we aspire to true equality of opportunity and rightly so. That means that those who face structural problems, whether of poverty, social breakdown, poor schooling or whatever should indeed be helped but the ideal that all are selected on merit is a really important principle and should not be abandoned, whether for gender or racial reasons.
At what point does law start seeing the same problems as medicine, that encouragement of women to join these professions leads eventually to shortages, as they effectively “retire” in their thirties?
I don't think that it will. The key difference is that it is relatively easy and cheap to train lawyers. We don't need lots of kit or fancy labs. We get books and precedent, pretty much all of which are now available online.
The problem in medicine is that UK plc invests very serious money into training a doctor. If that doctor goes part time for family reasons in his or her 30s we have got a very poor return on that investment. Ditto if they retire in their late 50s because they have maxed out their pensions.
Like I've said before, we should pay doctors less so that they have to work full time to make ends meet and have to keep at it until they reach retirement age. It's not like they are capable of doing something else instead, and there will be no shortage of teenagers [whose parents are] desperate [for them to] get into med school.
Not sure about the last bit of that. Pharmacy pay rates, particularly for locums, dipped markedly with the increase in pharmacy graduates (last 10-15 years with new schools of pharmacy). This made it a lot harder to recruit students, and the ones who did come had on average worse grades. If you degrade doctors pay and conditions too much, you may choke the supply too. If you are a bright kid, there are many high paid careers. Engineering, the city, law, artisanal flint knapping. Medicine is popular not just because of a desire to help people, but because of pay and the chance to retire young(ish) and work part time.
Medicine is popular so that parents can say "My son/daughter is a doctor".
The decline in Foundation Doctors (Interns in America) continuing in training in either hospital specialities or General Practice is quite stark over the last decade.
Some go into research, locums, etc and apply later on but increasingly leave the profession entirely.
Blimey. That's a leaky pipeline. What happened?
Possibly an increase in students. Foxy will know more, but I’m certain there has been an increase in numbers coming through, which may lead to more competition for places/jobs.
No, there are lots of unfilled Specialist training posts.
Cheers. There are more students coming through though, aren’t there? We’ve seen an impact on pharmacy of more medics studying at uni at least.
On this whole set of issues I've never understood the forays into performing irreversible or hard to reverse procedures for children and adolescents.
We don't even trust children to drive, smoke, drink, have sex, decide to drop out of school, and many other things, but we think they can make such choices rather than, if needed, be supported until such a time as they can make that choice as an adult?
Medical opinion on this subject seems quite different in the US to the UK.
Hard to see how informed consent could be given.
But there is a lot of money to be made from giving such drugs to children with all the consequent medical damage they cause, surgery and making children life long patients.
Until the first successful lawsuit, at which point the industry will collapse because insurance coverage will disappear and the poor children who have been experimented on will be forgotten. This is shaping up to be quite the medical-legal scandal, as some have been warning for some time.
NYPD: "On August 12, 2022, at about 11 a.m., a male suspect ran up onto the stage and attacked Rushdie and an interviewer. Rushdie suffered an apparent stab wound to the neck, and was transported by helicopter to an area hospital. His condition is not yet known"
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
Huffle, puffle. 50 odd people so far have died as a direct result of Rushdie's desire to cause a stir, in a way rather predictable when he published. People are often held responsible for the foreseeable consequrnces of their actions.
Republican leaders also expressed support for rank-and-file FBI agents and condemned Thursday’s attack on an FBI building in Ohio.
That attack was perpetrated by a man who was at the Capitol during the riot by Trump supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, and was reportedly motivated to attack FBI employees because of the search warrant on the former president’s residence.
Just like Dems responding to investigations into Hunter Biden’s laptop.
NYPD: "On August 12, 2022, at about 11 a.m., a male suspect ran up onto the stage and attacked Rushdie and an interviewer. Rushdie suffered an apparent stab wound to the neck, and was transported by helicopter to an area hospital. His condition is not yet known"
I thought Leon told us it wasn't too bad???
There were multiple contradictory reports.
I think we can assume the governor is reasonable week informed.
After reading all those Woke essays, I want seriously rightwing Republicans to win - just not Trump, he's toxic, mad, venal and a menacing narcissist
A radical right government is the only way America can save itself. Which is a damn shame, because the radical right in the USA is fucking nuts. But at least they are patriotic, and not social justice commies. The American Left will actually destroy America
Yeah but your obsession over woke has driven you as mad as a box of frogs. Or its just your age like your ranting about the music of today and how there's no good music anymore.
"Social justice commies" is something that frothing loons have been raving about for about 75 years. Have you got any reds under your bed?
1960s Leon would have been ranting about the music of the youth, counterculture, civil rights and so on.
@Leon is the best recruiting Sargeant for woke out there: his mouth frothes so much, that one assumes that he must be talking utter shit.
It's all in a working day to me but what I will say is that the aspect of Leon's (and indeed Mr Ed's) US commentary I find the most troubling - in fact it makes me tremble - is the relentless False Equivalence.
The notion that Trump and his MAGA cult - who have colonized the Republican Party, rejected the democratic process and poisoned the heads of a sizeable chunk of the population - are no more toxic and dangerous to the fabric and health of America than so-called 'wokery'. This is a plain verifiable falsehood.
And it's not just an airy fairy debating point this. False Equivalence is a deeply pernicious MO that's consistently used by all of the world's worst people - as well as by Leon and Mr Ed. Eg Putin does it all the time. Equates some horror he's perpetrating with a crime committed against Russia that's either made up or wildly exaggerated.
Terrorists do it too. Eg one of them gets caught and banged up and becomes a prisoner. So the outfit goes and kidnaps some innocent and now THEY have a prisoner. What do they do? They offer a swap. "You release our prisoner and we'll release yours". That's blackmail of course but it's also an example of using False Equivalence for nefarious ends. Like Leon and Mr Ed do - although not for *equally* nefarious ends as terrorists and Putin obviously - that would be a False Equivalence.
As is customary in these cases, alleged six photos, but only only one available. It’s good, but could be an object thrown into the air and snapped. This story was covered by the recent Craig Charles series, and I wonder if that’s why it’s surfaced now. Certainly intriguing. I don’t buy their story of terror though. I’d be fascinated, not terrified.
The thing that I notice is that the polygonal shape is markedly sharper than the Harrier in the background. Ergo markedly nearer. So relative size is not at all clear.
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
If this turns out to be a murder , it could be easily construed as a state sponsored murder by Iran on american soil. I hope Iran then has to live with what that may bring
Is that really an unorthodox secret aircraft that made no sound and moved at astonishing speed? And why does it suddenly emerge now, after 30’years? Quite odd
In fairness, 30 years is a pretty normal delay on a MOD contract.
As is customary in these cases, alleged six photos, but only only one available. It’s good, but could be an object thrown into the air and snapped. This story was covered by the recent Craig Charles series, and I wonder if that’s why it’s surfaced now. Certainly intriguing. I don’t buy their story of terror though. I’d be fascinated, not terrified.
My first instinct was something reflecting in a loch.
Good shout. A rock and it’s reflection, plus the plane (reflection only) would work. Certainly no hills to go by.
The fence line is odd. I'd have wanted a general view of the area with the fence etc.
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
Huffle, puffle. 50 odd people so far have died as a direct result of Rushdie's desire to cause a stir, in a way rather predictable when he published. People are often held responsible for the foreseeable consequrnces of their actions.
The people who decided to riot and attack and kill are indeed responsible for the consequences of their actions. The people who incited violence, murder and rioting are indeed responsible for the foreseeable and intended consequences of their actions.
Rushdie does not fall into either category.
"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible."
Those who think and speak freely are not those who deserve condemnation. Those who act violently, support, encourage, incite them or justify it or turn a blind eye to it out of moral and/or physical cowardice deserve all the condemnation going.
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
If this turns out to be a murder , it could be easily construed as a state sponsored murder by Iran on american soil. I hope Iran then has to live with what that may bring
What, another Iraq war and a few 10s of 1,000s of dead civilians?
As is customary in these cases, alleged six photos, but only only one available. It’s good, but could be an object thrown into the air and snapped. This story was covered by the recent Craig Charles series, and I wonder if that’s why it’s surfaced now. Certainly intriguing. I don’t buy their story of terror though. I’d be fascinated, not terrified.
My first instinct was something reflecting in a loch.
Good shout. A rock and it’s reflection, plus the plane (reflection only) would work. Certainly no hills to go by.
The fence line is odd. I'd have wanted a general view of the area with the fence etc.
As is customary in these cases, alleged six photos, but only only one available. It’s good, but could be an object thrown into the air and snapped. This story was covered by the recent Craig Charles series, and I wonder if that’s why it’s surfaced now. Certainly intriguing. I don’t buy their story of terror though. I’d be fascinated, not terrified.
My first instinct was something reflecting in a loch.
Good shout. A rock and it’s reflection, plus the plane (reflection only) would work. Certainly no hills to go by.
One point - the plane isn't inverted, I think. This works better with the kite idea.
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
Huffle, puffle. 50 odd people so far have died as a direct result of Rushdie's desire to cause a stir, in a way rather predictable when he published. People are often held responsible for the foreseeable consequrnces of their actions.
The people who decided to riot and attack and kill are indeed responsible for the consequences of their actions. The people who incited violence, murder and rioting are indeed responsible for the foreseeable and intended consequences of their actions.
Rushdie does not fall into either category.
"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible."
Those who think and speak freely are not those who deserve condemnation. Those who act violently, support, encourage, incite them or justify it or turn a blind eye to it out of moral and/or physical cowardice deserve all the condemnation going.
Or, don't publish provocative, catchpenny shite and then demand years of protection from the consequences on my tax dollar while dozens of Turks burn to death.
Really worried, not going to sleep a wink until I hear Sally has pulled through.
As is customary in these cases, alleged six photos, but only only one available. It’s good, but could be an object thrown into the air and snapped. This story was covered by the recent Craig Charles series, and I wonder if that’s why it’s surfaced now. Certainly intriguing. I don’t buy their story of terror though. I’d be fascinated, not terrified.
My first instinct was something reflecting in a loch.
Good shout. A rock and it’s reflection, plus the plane (reflection only) would work. Certainly no hills to go by.
The fence line is odd. I'd have wanted a general view of the area with the fence etc.
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
Huffle, puffle. 50 odd people so far have died as a direct result of Rushdie's desire to cause a stir, in a way rather predictable when he published. People are often held responsible for the foreseeable consequrnces of their actions.
The people who decided to riot and attack and kill are indeed responsible for the consequences of their actions. The people who incited violence, murder and rioting are indeed responsible for the foreseeable and intended consequences of their actions.
Rushdie does not fall into either category.
"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible."
Those who think and speak freely are not those who deserve condemnation. Those who act violently, support, encourage, incite them or justify it or turn a blind eye to it out of moral and/or physical cowardice deserve all the condemnation going.
Or, don't publish provocative, catchpenny shite and then demand years of protection from the consequences on my tax dollar while dozens of Turks burn to death.
Really worried, not going to sleep a wink until I hear Sally has pulled through.
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
Huffle, puffle. 50 odd people so far have died as a direct result of Rushdie's desire to cause a stir, in a way rather predictable when he published. People are often held responsible for the foreseeable consequrnces of their actions.
The people who decided to riot and attack and kill are indeed responsible for the consequences of their actions. The people who incited violence, murder and rioting are indeed responsible for the foreseeable and intended consequences of their actions.
Rushdie does not fall into either category.
"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible."
Those who think and speak freely are not those who deserve condemnation. Those who act violently, support, encourage, incite them or justify it or turn a blind eye to it out of moral and/or physical cowardice deserve all the condemnation going.
Or, don't publish provocative, catchpenny shite and then demand years of protection from the consequences on my tax dollar while dozens of Turks burn to death.
Really worried, not going to sleep a wink until I hear Sally has pulled through.
I normally can't be bothered replying to too many things but since you do me the honour of mentioning me personally, I will reply the courtesy.
What I find personally most offensive about the likes of you and your ilk is your pure hypocrisy. To give an example. The reason why I mention HRC in the context of Jan 6th is that both Hilary's intentions as well as Trump's intentions in both those events were to delegitimise a genuinely elected President. The means by which both tried to get their preferred outcome were different, as were the tools, but the intention was the same - to get the candidate you didn't like out.
Yet you try and cloak your intentions in the language of a noble act. If Trump was barred tomorrow from standing - and indeed any Republican who wasn't Liz Cheney - you would be very happy in explaining why it was justified.
So spare me your Grade 1 * hypocrisy. The likes of you are one of the biggest threats to democracy because you believe you are right and refuse to accept you might be wrong. As I've asked before - and very few of you have answered with the honourable exception of the likes of @RochdalePioneers - if you are so convinced Trump is so evil, then I assume you believe any means are justified - including refusing to accepting an election results and - or a coup - to get rid of him. It's pretty obvious that's what you think but you have not got the guts to say it.
After reading all those Woke essays, I want seriously rightwing Republicans to win - just not Trump, he's toxic, mad, venal and a menacing narcissist
A radical right government is the only way America can save itself. Which is a damn shame, because the radical right in the USA is fucking nuts. But at least they are patriotic, and not social justice commies. The American Left will actually destroy America
Yeah but your obsession over woke has driven you as mad as a box of frogs. Or its just your age like your ranting about the music of today and how there's no good music anymore.
"Social justice commies" is something that frothing loons have been raving about for about 75 years. Have you got any reds under your bed?
1960s Leon would have been ranting about the music of the youth, counterculture, civil rights and so on.
@Leon is the best recruiting Sargeant for woke out there: his mouth frothes so much, that one assumes that he must be talking utter shit.
It's all in a working day to me but what I will say is that the aspect of Leon's (and indeed Mr Ed's) US commentary I find the most troubling - in fact it makes me tremble - is the relentless False Equivalence.
The notion that Trump and his MAGA cult - who have colonized the Republican Party, rejected the democratic process and poisoned the heads of a sizeable chunk of the population - are no more toxic and dangerous to the fabric and health of America than so-called 'wokery'. This is a plain verifiable falsehood.
And it's not just an airy fairy debating point this. False Equivalence is a deeply pernicious MO that's consistently used by all of the world's worst people - as well as by Leon and Mr Ed. Eg Putin does it all the time. Equates some horror he's perpetrating with a crime committed against Russia that's either made up or wildly exaggerated.
Terrorists do it too. Eg one of them gets caught and banged up and becomes a prisoner. So the outfit goes and kidnaps some innocent and now THEY have a prisoner. What do they do? They offer a swap. "You release our prisoner and we'll release yours". That's blackmail of course but it's also an example of using False Equivalence for nefarious ends. Like Leon and Mr Ed do - although not for *equally* nefarious ends as terrorists and Putin obviously - that would be a False Equivalence.
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
Huffle, puffle. 50 odd people so far have died as a direct result of Rushdie's desire to cause a stir, in a way rather predictable when he published. People are often held responsible for the foreseeable consequrnces of their actions.
The people who decided to riot and attack and kill are indeed responsible for the consequences of their actions. The people who incited violence, murder and rioting are indeed responsible for the foreseeable and intended consequences of their actions.
Rushdie does not fall into either category.
"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible."
Those who think and speak freely are not those who deserve condemnation. Those who act violently, support, encourage, incite them or justify it or turn a blind eye to it out of moral and/or physical cowardice deserve all the condemnation going.
Or, don't publish provocative, catchpenny shite and then demand years of protection from the consequences on my tax dollar while dozens of Turks burn to death.
Really worried, not going to sleep a wink until I hear Sally has pulled through.
Does TSV call for the death of Muslims? I must have missed that last time I read it.
The FBI raid won't hurt Trump's chances of getting the Republican nomination & it might even help him a lot by energising his supporters.
The people who'll vote for him in the primaries don't really care if he took any documents when he left the White House & they think the raids are politically motivated.
Yes, if he wants to run again the GOP nomination is Trump's for the taking.
If he declines to run again though I would make Pence favourite to be GOP nominee. DeSantis I think will lose his Florida governorship re election attempt in November to Charlie Crist based on the most recent polls.
Pence is also even more pro life than Trump and the darling of evangelical voters and therefore the ideal candidate for the GOP post Trump and post Roe v Wade. Loyal to Trump while respecting the constitution and staunchly in favour of taking as much opportunity to push the new opportunity for the pro life movement in as many states as possible
Pence, in the eyes of the Trump fanatics, failed to stop the steal. They won’t forgive him. I think his path to the nomination is a difficult one.
Against Trump or De Santis yes, absent neither it is there for the taking and evangelical voters would strongly be behind Pence
It seems unlikely to me that there won’t be a Trumpist candidate: Trump himself or De Santis or someone else. For Pence to come through, he needs no-one Trumpier up against him. Ain’t gonna happen.
There are a lot of evangelical voters, but it appears there are even more who think Trump is god.
Absent Trump and DeSantis Pence's main rivals would be Cruz, who is no Trumpite having been Trump's main rival in 2016 for the nomination and Haley who is too moderate for the GOP at the moment and also somewhat distant from Trump
Cruz is a pretty awful candidate.
Rick Scott, the Florida Senator who headlined CPAC is another possibility.
Having looked at my betting slips Tom Cotton or Marco Rubiob are the clear an obvious front runners if Trump drops.
From memory reading his memoir Joseph Anton Rushdie was quite taken aback by the outrage it caused. And it was not outrage caused by publication but the politically motivated Iranian issued Fatwa that came afterwards.
Anyway a chance to link to the Question Time discussion on Rushdie's knighthood from 2007.
From memory reading his memoir Joseph Anton Rushdie was quite taken aback by the outrage it caused. And it was not outrage caused by publication but the politically motivated Iranian issued Fatwa that came afterwards.
Anyway a chance to link to the Question Time discussion on Rushdie's knighthood from 2007.
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
You can have a free, liberal society or a fully multicutultural one, including lots of hardline Muslims.
You cannot have both or they will conflict, that is just the reality left liberals need to face. Either you preserve a free, liberal society and tighten immigration controls to filter out extremists or you have open door immigration but with restraint needed on free speech or you get conflict
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
You can have a free, liberal society or a fully multicutultural one, including lots of hardline Muslims.
You cannot have both or they will conflict, that is just the reality left liberals need to face. Either you preserve a free, liberal society and tighten immigration controls to filter out extremists or you have open door immigration but with restraint needed on free speech or you get conflict
Free speech, everyone welcome but authoritarians of any flavour challenged by the rest of society.
The FBI raid won't hurt Trump's chances of getting the Republican nomination & it might even help him a lot by energising his supporters.
The people who'll vote for him in the primaries don't really care if he took any documents when he left the White House & they think the raids are politically motivated.
Yes, if he wants to run again the GOP nomination is Trump's for the taking.
If he declines to run again though I would make Pence favourite to be GOP nominee. DeSantis I think will lose his Florida governorship re election attempt in November to Charlie Crist based on the most recent polls.
Pence is also even more pro life than Trump and the darling of evangelical voters and therefore the ideal candidate for the GOP post Trump and post Roe v Wade. Loyal to Trump while respecting the constitution and staunchly in favour of taking as much opportunity to push the new opportunity for the pro life movement in as many states as possible
Pence, in the eyes of the Trump fanatics, failed to stop the steal. They won’t forgive him. I think his path to the nomination is a difficult one.
Against Trump or De Santis yes, absent neither it is there for the taking and evangelical voters would strongly be behind Pence
It seems unlikely to me that there won’t be a Trumpist candidate: Trump himself or De Santis or someone else. For Pence to come through, he needs no-one Trumpier up against him. Ain’t gonna happen.
There are a lot of evangelical voters, but it appears there are even more who think Trump is god.
Absent Trump and DeSantis Pence's main rivals would be Cruz, who is no Trumpite having been Trump's main rival in 2016 for the nomination and Haley who is too moderate for the GOP at the moment and also somewhat distant from Trump
Cruz is a pretty awful candidate.
Rick Scott, the Florida Senator who headlined CPAC is another possibility.
Having looked at my betting slips Tom Cotton or Marco Rubiob are the clear an obvious front runners if Trump drops.
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
You can have a free, liberal society or a fully multicutultural one, including lots of hardline Muslims.
You cannot have both or they will conflict, that is just the reality left liberals need to face. Either you preserve a free, liberal society and tighten immigration controls to filter out extremists or you have open door immigration but with restraint needed on free speech or you get conflict
I think you can as long on the extremists don't go around stabbing people.
This is largely the case in the UK. We just need to crack down on anyone who wants to impose their views on others outwith the democratic system, by violence or otherwise.
From memory reading his memoir Joseph Anton Rushdie was quite taken aback by the outrage it caused. And it was not outrage caused by publication but the politically motivated Iranian issued Fatwa that came afterwards.
Anyway a chance to link to the Question Time discussion on Rushdie's knighthood from 2007.
What a horrible opener from Shirley Williams. Whether Rushdie deserved a knighthood or not - to the extent anyone deserves such a thing - that 'this is a man who has deeply offended muslims in a very powerful way' is her principal objection is utterly contemptable. All muslims offended were they? And even if they were what has that got to do with recognition of literary achievement?
Not taking actions we would otherwise take for fear of giving offence to people who would respond with violence is deeply irrational.
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
You can have a free, liberal society or a fully multicutultural one, including lots of hardline Muslims.
You cannot have both or they will conflict, that is just the reality left liberals need to face. Either you preserve a free, liberal society and tighten immigration controls to filter out extremists or you have open door immigration but with restraint needed on free speech or you get conflict
I think you can as long on the extremists don't go around stabbing people.
This is largely the case in the UK. We just need to crack down on anyone who wants to impose their views on others outwith the democratic system, by violence or otherwise.
It's also a strange theory, that extremism can be controlled by controlling immigration.
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
You can have a free, liberal society or a fully multicutultural one, including lots of hardline Muslims.
You cannot have both or they will conflict, that is just the reality left liberals need to face. Either you preserve a free, liberal society and tighten immigration controls to filter out extremists or you have open door immigration but with restraint needed on free speech or you get conflict
I think you can as long on the extremists don't go around stabbing people.
This is largely the case in the UK. We just need to crack down on anyone who wants to impose their views on others outwith the democratic system, by violence or otherwise.
Yes, I agree. I'm fine with other people having views I consider extreme, so long as they don't try to attack others. If they do, they should be locked up. Conversely, I'm against people who attack others, even in pursuit of moderate views (e.g. I'd be against throwing stones at a Britain First rally).
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
You can have a free, liberal society or a fully multicutultural one, including lots of hardline Muslims.
You cannot have both or they will conflict, that is just the reality left liberals need to face. Either you preserve a free, liberal society and tighten immigration controls to filter out extremists or you have open door immigration but with restraint needed on free speech or you get conflict
Or you have a free liberal society and, since you cannot filter out extremists since some will be homegrown, you ensure such extremists are not catered to in their irrational, childish prejudices - you ignore their protests, and punish anyone who takes actions on that basis.
The problem becomes is that doesn't tackle the problem at its root, only when it's expressed itself - and likely after others have been harmed.
It should be pretty an open and shut case - it yoh believe in women's rights, you should not be tolerating a culture that sees women as inferior and / or imposes practices on women that mark them as second class citizens. You wouldn't accept it if a bunch of right wing gammons did it.
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
You can have a free, liberal society or a fully multicutultural one, including lots of hardline Muslims.
You cannot have both or they will conflict, that is just the reality left liberals need to face. Either you preserve a free, liberal society and tighten immigration controls to filter out extremists or you have open door immigration but with restraint needed on free speech or you get conflict
I think you can as long on the extremists don't go around stabbing people.
This is largely the case in the UK. We just need to crack down on anyone who wants to impose their views on others outwith the democratic system, by violence or otherwise.
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
You can have a free, liberal society or a fully multicutultural one, including lots of hardline Muslims.
You cannot have both or they will conflict, that is just the reality left liberals need to face. Either you preserve a free, liberal society and tighten immigration controls to filter out extremists or you have open door immigration but with restraint needed on free speech or you get conflict
I think you can as long on the extremists don't go around stabbing people.
This is largely the case in the UK. We just need to crack down on anyone who wants to impose their views on others outwith the democratic system, by violence or otherwise.
It's also a strange theory, that extremism can be controlled by controlling immigration.
I take great pride in our current population, which is more than capable of coming up with extreme, offensive ideas all on it's lonesome. See pineapple on pizza, or Edinburgh's turd hotel.
NYPD: "On August 12, 2022, at about 11 a.m., a male suspect ran up onto the stage and attacked Rushdie and an interviewer. Rushdie suffered an apparent stab wound to the neck, and was transported by helicopter to an area hospital. His condition is not yet known"
Attack on Salman Rushie occurred in western New York State, at Chautauqua located between Buffalo and Erie, PA.
So perhaps quote is from NY State Police, instead of NYPD?
From memory reading his memoir Joseph Anton Rushdie was quite taken aback by the outrage it caused. And it was not outrage caused by publication but the politically motivated Iranian issued Fatwa that came afterwards.
Anyway a chance to link to the Question Time discussion on Rushdie's knighthood from 2007.
What a horrible opener from Shirley Williams. Whether Rushdie deserved a knighthood or not - to the extent anyone deserves such a thing - that 'this is a man who has deeply offended muslims in a very powerful way' is her principal objection is utterly contemptable. All muslims offended were they? And even if they were what has that got to do with recognition of literary achievement?
Not taking actions we would otherwise take for fear of giving offence to people who would respond with violence is deeply irrational.
Christopher Hitchens' response was amazing. I'm not a fanatical follower of his but it made me start to realise why people loved him.
I normally can't be bothered replying to too many things but since you do me the honour of mentioning me personally, I will reply the courtesy.
What I find personally most offensive about the likes of you and your ilk is your pure hypocrisy. To give an example. The reason why I mention HRC in the context of Jan 6th is that both Hilary's intentions as well as Trump's intentions in both those events were to delegitimise a genuinely elected President. The means by which both tried to get their preferred outcome were different, as were the tools, but the intention was the same - to get the candidate you didn't like out.
Yet you try and cloak your intentions in the language of a noble act. If Trump was barred tomorrow from standing - and indeed any Republican who wasn't Liz Cheney - you would be very happy in explaining why it was justified.
So spare me your Grade 1 * hypocrisy. The likes of you are one of the biggest threats to democracy because you believe you are right and refuse to accept you might be wrong. As I've asked before - and very few of you have answered with the honourable exception of the likes of @RochdalePioneers - if you are so convinced Trump is so evil, then I assume you believe any means are justified - including refusing to accepting an election results and - or a coup - to get rid of him. It's pretty obvious that's what you think but you have not got the guts to say it.
After reading all those Woke essays, I want seriously rightwing Republicans to win - just not Trump, he's toxic, mad, venal and a menacing narcissist
A radical right government is the only way America can save itself. Which is a damn shame, because the radical right in the USA is fucking nuts. But at least they are patriotic, and not social justice commies. The American Left will actually destroy America
Yeah but your obsession over woke has driven you as mad as a box of frogs. Or its just your age like your ranting about the music of today and how there's no good music anymore.
"Social justice commies" is something that frothing loons have been raving about for about 75 years. Have you got any reds under your bed?
1960s Leon would have been ranting about the music of the youth, counterculture, civil rights and so on.
@Leon is the best recruiting Sargeant for woke out there: his mouth frothes so much, that one assumes that he must be talking utter shit.
It's all in a working day to me but what I will say is that the aspect of Leon's (and indeed Mr Ed's) US commentary I find the most troubling - in fact it makes me tremble - is the relentless False Equivalence.
The notion that Trump and his MAGA cult - who have colonized the Republican Party, rejected the democratic process and poisoned the heads of a sizeable chunk of the population - are no more toxic and dangerous to the fabric and health of America than so-called 'wokery'. This is a plain verifiable falsehood.
And it's not just an airy fairy debating point this. False Equivalence is a deeply pernicious MO that's consistently used by all of the world's worst people - as well as by Leon and Mr Ed. Eg Putin does it all the time. Equates some horror he's perpetrating with a crime committed against Russia that's either made up or wildly exaggerated.
Terrorists do it too. Eg one of them gets caught and banged up and becomes a prisoner. So the outfit goes and kidnaps some innocent and now THEY have a prisoner. What do they do? They offer a swap. "You release our prisoner and we'll release yours". That's blackmail of course but it's also an example of using False Equivalence for nefarious ends. Like Leon and Mr Ed do - although not for *equally* nefarious ends as terrorists and Putin obviously - that would be a False Equivalence.
Candidates are entitled to legally question election results, but once they have lost these challenges they HAVE to accept it, Only Trump has tried to hang on to power having lost by illegal and violent means. Here is just one example. I'm sure you know of many more. "Donald Trump: 'I just want to find 11,780 votes’" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-55524676
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
Huffle, puffle. 50 odd people so far have died as a direct result of Rushdie's desire to cause a stir, in a way rather predictable when he published. People are often held responsible for the foreseeable consequrnces of their actions.
What utter shash. Someone writing a work of fiction is not responsible for the way irrational people choose to behave when they read it. It's not a 'direct result' of his writing, it is a direct result of utterly barmy people reacting in an insane way to a work of fiction. Anyone reacting violently to a story has the IQ and emotional intellect of a glass of water, however they defend themselves with religious conviction, and it is utterly wrongheaded for such fools to be denied agency by placing the blame on whoever 'provoked' them.
Does the concept of disproportionate response not exist for some people? If I stamp on your foot you are not justified in shooting me in the face, nor would it rationally be described as a direct result of my provocation, since no rational person would react in such a disproportionate way.
I just do not see how it is possible to place responsibility for the actions of self evidently crazy people - you would have to be crazy to respond so - at the hands of a novellist.
On that basis, I assume you think West Germany - and indeed Germany now - are very wrong to have the measures they have in place against the Nazis? Let the fascists show their swastikas et al as long as they don't act in an extremist fashion. Correct?
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
You can have a free, liberal society or a fully multicutultural one, including lots of hardline Muslims.
You cannot have both or they will conflict, that is just the reality left liberals need to face. Either you preserve a free, liberal society and tighten immigration controls to filter out extremists or you have open door immigration but with restraint needed on free speech or you get conflict
I think you can as long on the extremists don't go around stabbing people.
This is largely the case in the UK. We just need to crack down on anyone who wants to impose their views on others outwith the democratic system, by violence or otherwise.
Yes, I agree. I'm fine with other people having views I consider extreme, so long as they don't try to attack others. If they do, they should be locked up. Conversely, I'm against people who attack others, even in pursuit of moderate views (e.g. I'd be against throwing stones at a Britain First rally).
The FBI raid won't hurt Trump's chances of getting the Republican nomination & it might even help him a lot by energising his supporters.
The people who'll vote for him in the primaries don't really care if he took any documents when he left the White House & they think the raids are politically motivated.
Yes, if he wants to run again the GOP nomination is Trump's for the taking.
If he declines to run again though I would make Pence favourite to be GOP nominee. DeSantis I think will lose his Florida governorship re election attempt in November to Charlie Crist based on the most recent polls.
Pence is also even more pro life than Trump and the darling of evangelical voters and therefore the ideal candidate for the GOP post Trump and post Roe v Wade. Loyal to Trump while respecting the constitution and staunchly in favour of taking as much opportunity to push the new opportunity for the pro life movement in as many states as possible
Pence, in the eyes of the Trump fanatics, failed to stop the steal. They won’t forgive him. I think his path to the nomination is a difficult one.
Against Trump or De Santis yes, absent neither it is there for the taking and evangelical voters would strongly be behind Pence
It seems unlikely to me that there won’t be a Trumpist candidate: Trump himself or De Santis or someone else. For Pence to come through, he needs no-one Trumpier up against him. Ain’t gonna happen.
There are a lot of evangelical voters, but it appears there are even more who think Trump is god.
Absent Trump and DeSantis Pence's main rivals would be Cruz, who is no Trumpite having been Trump's main rival in 2016 for the nomination and Haley who is too moderate for the GOP at the moment and also somewhat distant from Trump
Cruz is a pretty awful candidate.
Rick Scott, the Florida Senator who headlined CPAC is another possibility.
Having looked at my betting slips Tom Cotton or Marco Rubiob are the clear an obvious front runners if Trump drops.
Clear. And. Obvious.
What's the point of this debate? Trump will run and he will win the nomination.
Only way it doesn't happen is if the feds have finally got their man or God intervenes.
I normally can't be bothered replying to too many things but since you do me the honour of mentioning me personally, I will reply the courtesy.
What I find personally most offensive about the likes of you and your ilk is your pure hypocrisy. To give an example. The reason why I mention HRC in the context of Jan 6th is that both Hilary's intentions as well as Trump's intentions in both those events were to delegitimise a genuinely elected President. The means by which both tried to get their preferred outcome were different, as were the tools, but the intention was the same - to get the candidate you didn't like out.
Yet you try and cloak your intentions in the language of a noble act. If Trump was barred tomorrow from standing - and indeed any Republican who wasn't Liz Cheney - you would be very happy in explaining why it was justified.
So spare me your Grade 1 * hypocrisy. The likes of you are one of the biggest threats to democracy because you believe you are right and refuse to accept you might be wrong. As I've asked before - and very few of you have answered with the honourable exception of the likes of @RochdalePioneers - if you are so convinced Trump is so evil, then I assume you believe any means are justified - including refusing to accepting an election results and - or a coup - to get rid of him. It's pretty obvious that's what you think but you have not got the guts to say it.
After reading all those Woke essays, I want seriously rightwing Republicans to win - just not Trump, he's toxic, mad, venal and a menacing narcissist
A radical right government is the only way America can save itself. Which is a damn shame, because the radical right in the USA is fucking nuts. But at least they are patriotic, and not social justice commies. The American Left will actually destroy America
Yeah but your obsession over woke has driven you as mad as a box of frogs. Or its just your age like your ranting about the music of today and how there's no good music anymore.
"Social justice commies" is something that frothing loons have been raving about for about 75 years. Have you got any reds under your bed?
1960s Leon would have been ranting about the music of the youth, counterculture, civil rights and so on.
@Leon is the best recruiting Sargeant for woke out there: his mouth frothes so much, that one assumes that he must be talking utter shit.
It's all in a working day to me but what I will say is that the aspect of Leon's (and indeed Mr Ed's) US commentary I find the most troubling - in fact it makes me tremble - is the relentless False Equivalence.
The notion that Trump and his MAGA cult - who have colonized the Republican Party, rejected the democratic process and poisoned the heads of a sizeable chunk of the population - are no more toxic and dangerous to the fabric and health of America than so-called 'wokery'. This is a plain verifiable falsehood.
And it's not just an airy fairy debating point this. False Equivalence is a deeply pernicious MO that's consistently used by all of the world's worst people - as well as by Leon and Mr Ed. Eg Putin does it all the time. Equates some horror he's perpetrating with a crime committed against Russia that's either made up or wildly exaggerated.
Terrorists do it too. Eg one of them gets caught and banged up and becomes a prisoner. So the outfit goes and kidnaps some innocent and now THEY have a prisoner. What do they do? They offer a swap. "You release our prisoner and we'll release yours". That's blackmail of course but it's also an example of using False Equivalence for nefarious ends. Like Leon and Mr Ed do - although not for *equally* nefarious ends as terrorists and Putin obviously - that would be a False Equivalence.
Candidates are entitled to legally question election results, but once they have lost these challenges they HAVE to accept it, Only Trump has tried to hang on to power having lost by illegal and violent means. Here is just one example. I'm sure you know of many more. "Donald Trump: 'I just want to find 11,780 votes’" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-55524676
That is the important thing. Dozens and dozens of legal challenges, which were without basis, and then still trying to hold on. It wasn't simply the launching of challenges that was the issue, the process allows for that even if the number of baseless challenges showed it was being abused.
I've said before Trump was wrong to say he won, and he should accept he lost. His constant whingeing about losing is tiresome.
And yet HRC - and others - were still pushing the line in 2019 / 2020 that Trump only got elected because of Russian help. HRC said Trump was not a legitimate President several years post-election.
You either believe in accepting the results or not. I believe Trump won in 2016 and Biden won in 2020. There are too many on here that will take the latter but place massive caveats on the former. That's not believing in democracy. That's accepting democracy only if it gives you the results you want.
I normally can't be bothered replying to too many things but since you do me the honour of mentioning me personally, I will reply the courtesy.
What I find personally most offensive about the likes of you and your ilk is your pure hypocrisy. To give an example. The reason why I mention HRC in the context of Jan 6th is that both Hilary's intentions as well as Trump's intentions in both those events were to delegitimise a genuinely elected President. The means by which both tried to get their preferred outcome were different, as were the tools, but the intention was the same - to get the candidate you didn't like out.
Yet you try and cloak your intentions in the language of a noble act. If Trump was barred tomorrow from standing - and indeed any Republican who wasn't Liz Cheney - you would be very happy in explaining why it was justified.
So spare me your Grade 1 * hypocrisy. The likes of you are one of the biggest threats to democracy because you believe you are right and refuse to accept you might be wrong. As I've asked before - and very few of you have answered with the honourable exception of the likes of @RochdalePioneers - if you are so convinced Trump is so evil, then I assume you believe any means are justified - including refusing to accepting an election results and - or a coup - to get rid of him. It's pretty obvious that's what you think but you have not got the guts to say it.
After reading all those Woke essays, I want seriously rightwing Republicans to win - just not Trump, he's toxic, mad, venal and a menacing narcissist
A radical right government is the only way America can save itself. Which is a damn shame, because the radical right in the USA is fucking nuts. But at least they are patriotic, and not social justice commies. The American Left will actually destroy America
Yeah but your obsession over woke has driven you as mad as a box of frogs. Or its just your age like your ranting about the music of today and how there's no good music anymore.
"Social justice commies" is something that frothing loons have been raving about for about 75 years. Have you got any reds under your bed?
1960s Leon would have been ranting about the music of the youth, counterculture, civil rights and so on.
@Leon is the best recruiting Sargeant for woke out there: his mouth frothes so much, that one assumes that he must be talking utter shit.
It's all in a working day to me but what I will say is that the aspect of Leon's (and indeed Mr Ed's) US commentary I find the most troubling - in fact it makes me tremble - is the relentless False Equivalence.
The notion that Trump and his MAGA cult - who have colonized the Republican Party, rejected the democratic process and poisoned the heads of a sizeable chunk of the population - are no more toxic and dangerous to the fabric and health of America than so-called 'wokery'. This is a plain verifiable falsehood.
And it's not just an airy fairy debating point this. False Equivalence is a deeply pernicious MO that's consistently used by all of the world's worst people - as well as by Leon and Mr Ed. Eg Putin does it all the time. Equates some horror he's perpetrating with a crime committed against Russia that's either made up or wildly exaggerated.
Terrorists do it too. Eg one of them gets caught and banged up and becomes a prisoner. So the outfit goes and kidnaps some innocent and now THEY have a prisoner. What do they do? They offer a swap. "You release our prisoner and we'll release yours". That's blackmail of course but it's also an example of using False Equivalence for nefarious ends. Like Leon and Mr Ed do - although not for *equally* nefarious ends as terrorists and Putin obviously - that would be a False Equivalence.
Candidates are entitled to legally question election results, but once they have lost these challenges they HAVE to accept it, Only Trump has tried to hang on to power having lost by illegal and violent means. Here is just one example. I'm sure you know of many more. "Donald Trump: 'I just want to find 11,780 votes’" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-55524676
The FBI raid won't hurt Trump's chances of getting the Republican nomination & it might even help him a lot by energising his supporters.
The people who'll vote for him in the primaries don't really care if he took any documents when he left the White House & they think the raids are politically motivated.
Yes, if he wants to run again the GOP nomination is Trump's for the taking.
If he declines to run again though I would make Pence favourite to be GOP nominee. DeSantis I think will lose his Florida governorship re election attempt in November to Charlie Crist based on the most recent polls.
Pence is also even more pro life than Trump and the darling of evangelical voters and therefore the ideal candidate for the GOP post Trump and post Roe v Wade. Loyal to Trump while respecting the constitution and staunchly in favour of taking as much opportunity to push the new opportunity for the pro life movement in as many states as possible
Pence, in the eyes of the Trump fanatics, failed to stop the steal. They won’t forgive him. I think his path to the nomination is a difficult one.
Against Trump or De Santis yes, absent neither it is there for the taking and evangelical voters would strongly be behind Pence
It seems unlikely to me that there won’t be a Trumpist candidate: Trump himself or De Santis or someone else. For Pence to come through, he needs no-one Trumpier up against him. Ain’t gonna happen.
There are a lot of evangelical voters, but it appears there are even more who think Trump is god.
Absent Trump and DeSantis Pence's main rivals would be Cruz, who is no Trumpite having been Trump's main rival in 2016 for the nomination and Haley who is too moderate for the GOP at the moment and also somewhat distant from Trump
Cruz is a pretty awful candidate.
Rick Scott, the Florida Senator who headlined CPAC is another possibility.
Having looked at my betting slips Tom Cotton or Marco Rubiob are the clear an obvious front runners if Trump drops.
Clear. And. Obvious.
What's the point of this debate? Trump will run and he will win the nomination.
Only way it doesn't happen is if the feds have finally got their man or God intervenes.
If the GOP don't win the Senate as well as the House I am not sure he will. He will only run if he thinks he is near certain of victory this time whether through the EC or Congress
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
Huffle, puffle. 50 odd people so far have died as a direct result of Rushdie's desire to cause a stir, in a way rather predictable when he published. People are often held responsible for the foreseeable consequrnces of their actions.
What utter shash. Someone writing a work of fiction is not responsible for the way irrational people choose to behave when they read it. It's not a 'direct result' of his writing, it is a direct result of utterly barmy people reacting in an insane way to a work of fiction. Anyone reacting violently to a story has the IQ and emotional intellect of a glass of water, however they defend themselves with religious conviction, and it is utterly wrongheaded to place the place for such fools to be denied agency by placing the blame on whoever 'provoked' them.
Does the concept of disproportionate response not exist for some people? If I stamp on your foot you are not justified in shooting me in the face, nor would it rationally be described as a direct result of my provocation, since no rational person would react in such a disproportionate way.
I just do not see how it is possible to place responsibility for the actions of self evidently crazy people - you would have to be crazy to respond so - at the hands of a novellist.
Yes, but if you are sane and know the mad person is mad that's not much of a defence is it? If a demented axeman asks you if you know where his wife is do you tell him?
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
You can have a free, liberal society or a fully multicutultural one, including lots of hardline Muslims.
You cannot have both or they will conflict, that is just the reality left liberals need to face. Either you preserve a free, liberal society and tighten immigration controls to filter out extremists or you have open door immigration but with restraint needed on free speech or you get conflict
Or you have a free liberal society and, since you cannot filter out extremists since some will be homegrown, you ensure such extremists are not catered to in their irrational, childish prejudices - you ignore their protests, and punish anyone who takes actions on that basis.
It's not multiculturalism to kowtow to thuggery.
On that basis there will soon be more extremist Muslims in the UK than the entire police force of the UK
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
Huffle, puffle. 50 odd people so far have died as a direct result of Rushdie's desire to cause a stir, in a way rather predictable when he published. People are often held responsible for the foreseeable consequrnces of their actions.
What utter shash. Someone writing a work of fiction is not responsible for the way irrational people choose to behave when they read it. It's not a 'direct result' of his writing, it is a direct result of utterly barmy people reacting in an insane way to a work of fiction. Anyone reacting violently to a story has the IQ and emotional intellect of a glass of water, however they defend themselves with religious conviction, and it is utterly wrongheaded to place the place for such fools to be denied agency by placing the blame on whoever 'provoked' them.
Does the concept of disproportionate response not exist for some people? If I stamp on your foot you are not justified in shooting me in the face, nor would it rationally be described as a direct result of my provocation, since no rational person would react in such a disproportionate way.
I just do not see how it is possible to place responsibility for the actions of self evidently crazy people - you would have to be crazy to respond so - at the hands of a novellist.
Yes, but if you are sane and know the mad person is mad that's not much of a defence is it? If a demented axeman asks you if you know where his wife is do you tell him?
There's no telling what mad people will react to or how they will react. Most even very devout muslims do not find themselves willing to kill Rushdie however enraged they might be by his work. No one could reasonably expect a lifelong risk of assassination even if they could predict many might get upset - the axeman analogy does not work because the axeman was not standing in front of him with very clear imminent consequences for answering in the affirmative. The axeman would already have to seek out his work of their own volition.
From memory reading his memoir Joseph Anton Rushdie was quite taken aback by the outrage it caused. And it was not outrage caused by publication but the politically motivated Iranian issued Fatwa that came afterwards.
Anyway a chance to link to the Question Time discussion on Rushdie's knighthood from 2007.
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
Huffle, puffle. 50 odd people so far have died as a direct result of Rushdie's desire to cause a stir, in a way rather predictable when he published. People are often held responsible for the foreseeable consequrnces of their actions.
What utter shash. Someone writing a work of fiction is not responsible for the way irrational people choose to behave when they read it. It's not a 'direct result' of his writing, it is a direct result of utterly barmy people reacting in an insane way to a work of fiction. Anyone reacting violently to a story has the IQ and emotional intellect of a glass of water, however they defend themselves with religious conviction, and it is utterly wrongheaded to place the place for such fools to be denied agency by placing the blame on whoever 'provoked' them.
Does the concept of disproportionate response not exist for some people? If I stamp on your foot you are not justified in shooting me in the face, nor would it rationally be described as a direct result of my provocation, since no rational person would react in such a disproportionate way.
I just do not see how it is possible to place responsibility for the actions of self evidently crazy people - you would have to be crazy to respond so - at the hands of a novellist.
Yes, but if you are sane and know the mad person is mad that's not much of a defence is it? If a demented axeman asks you if you know where his wife is do you tell him?
There's no telling what mad people will react to or how they will react. Most even very devout muslims do not find themselves willing to kill Rushdie however enraged they might be by his work. No one could reasonably expect a lifelong risk of assassination even if they could predict many might get upset - the axeman analogy does not work because the axeman was not standing in front of him with very clear imminent consequences for answering in the affirmative. The axeman would already have to seek out his work of their own volition.
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
You can have a free, liberal society or a fully multicutultural one, including lots of hardline Muslims.
You cannot have both or they will conflict, that is just the reality left liberals need to face. Either you preserve a free, liberal society and tighten immigration controls to filter out extremists or you have open door immigration but with restraint needed on free speech or you get conflict
Or you have a free liberal society and, since you cannot filter out extremists since some will be homegrown, you ensure such extremists are not catered to in their irrational, childish prejudices - you ignore their protests, and punish anyone who takes actions on that basis.
It's not multiculturalism to kowtow to thuggery.
On that basis there will soon be more extremist Muslims in the UK than the entire police force of the UK
How do you figure that?! My point was immigration controls do not prevent homegrown radicalisation, so what you proposed was not a solution at all because, gasp, there are people already here. Thus we deal with what is here firmly, and prevent it from spreading and growing, in part by not doing what they want and punishing those take action. Why would would not catering to extremist voices and punishing those who take extremist action lead to a surge of of extremist muslims?
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
Huffle, puffle. 50 odd people so far have died as a direct result of Rushdie's desire to cause a stir, in a way rather predictable when he published. People are often held responsible for the foreseeable consequrnces of their actions.
What utter shash. Someone writing a work of fiction is not responsible for the way irrational people choose to behave when they read it. It's not a 'direct result' of his writing, it is a direct result of utterly barmy people reacting in an insane way to a work of fiction. Anyone reacting violently to a story has the IQ and emotional intellect of a glass of water, however they defend themselves with religious conviction, and it is utterly wrongheaded to place the place for such fools to be denied agency by placing the blame on whoever 'provoked' them.
Does the concept of disproportionate response not exist for some people? If I stamp on your foot you are not justified in shooting me in the face, nor would it rationally be described as a direct result of my provocation, since no rational person would react in such a disproportionate way.
I just do not see how it is possible to place responsibility for the actions of self evidently crazy people - you would have to be crazy to respond so - at the hands of a novellist.
Yes, but if you are sane and know the mad person is mad that's not much of a defence is it? If a demented axeman asks you if you know where his wife is do you tell him?
There's no telling what mad people will react to or how they will react. Most even very devout muslims do not find themselves willing to kill Rushdie however enraged they might be by his work. No one could reasonably expect a lifelong risk of assassination even if they could predict many might get upset - the axeman analogy does not work because the axeman was not standing in front of him with very clear imminent consequences for answering in the affirmative. The axeman would already have to seek out his work of their own volition.
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
Huffle, puffle. 50 odd people so far have died as a direct result of Rushdie's desire to cause a stir, in a way rather predictable when he published. People are often held responsible for the foreseeable consequrnces of their actions.
What utter shash. Someone writing a work of fiction is not responsible for the way irrational people choose to behave when they read it. It's not a 'direct result' of his writing, it is a direct result of utterly barmy people reacting in an insane way to a work of fiction. Anyone reacting violently to a story has the IQ and emotional intellect of a glass of water, however they defend themselves with religious conviction, and it is utterly wrongheaded to place the place for such fools to be denied agency by placing the blame on whoever 'provoked' them.
Does the concept of disproportionate response not exist for some people? If I stamp on your foot you are not justified in shooting me in the face, nor would it rationally be described as a direct result of my provocation, since no rational person would react in such a disproportionate way.
I just do not see how it is possible to place responsibility for the actions of self evidently crazy people - you would have to be crazy to respond so - at the hands of a novellist.
Yes, but if you are sane and know the mad person is mad that's not much of a defence is it? If a demented axeman asks you if you know where his wife is do you tell him?
There's no telling what mad people will react to or how they will react. Most even very devout muslims do not find themselves willing to kill Rushdie however enraged they might be by his work. No one could reasonably expect a lifelong risk of assassination even if they could predict many might get upset - the axeman analogy does not work because the axeman was not standing in front of him with very clear imminent consequences for answering in the affirmative. The axeman would already have to seek out his work of their own volition.
It was immensely predictable.
And so the existence of crazy people reacting crazily is his fault and he should be held responsible for the actions of those crazy people?
As is customary in these cases, alleged six photos, but only only one available. It’s good, but could be an object thrown into the air and snapped. This story was covered by the recent Craig Charles series, and I wonder if that’s why it’s surfaced now. Certainly intriguing. I don’t buy their story of terror though. I’d be fascinated, not terrified.
This one has been a staple of Nick Pope when hes whoring himself round the media. He 'had a blown up copy on the wall at the MoD' until it was mysteriously confiscated by superiors. Pope is about as trustworthy as a skunk imo, he enjoys the limelight way too much. A bit like Elizondo and his cheerleader Tom DeLonge in the States
From memory reading his memoir Joseph Anton Rushdie was quite taken aback by the outrage it caused. And it was not outrage caused by publication but the politically motivated Iranian issued Fatwa that came afterwards.
Anyway a chance to link to the Question Time discussion on Rushdie's knighthood from 2007.
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
Huffle, puffle. 50 odd people so far have died as a direct result of Rushdie's desire to cause a stir, in a way rather predictable when he published. People are often held responsible for the foreseeable consequrnces of their actions.
What utter shash. Someone writing a work of fiction is not responsible for the way irrational people choose to behave when they read it. It's not a 'direct result' of his writing, it is a direct result of utterly barmy people reacting in an insane way to a work of fiction. Anyone reacting violently to a story has the IQ and emotional intellect of a glass of water, however they defend themselves with religious conviction, and it is utterly wrongheaded to place the place for such fools to be denied agency by placing the blame on whoever 'provoked' them.
Does the concept of disproportionate response not exist for some people? If I stamp on your foot you are not justified in shooting me in the face, nor would it rationally be described as a direct result of my provocation, since no rational person would react in such a disproportionate way.
I just do not see how it is possible to place responsibility for the actions of self evidently crazy people - you would have to be crazy to respond so - at the hands of a novellist.
Yes, but if you are sane and know the mad person is mad that's not much of a defence is it? If a demented axeman asks you if you know where his wife is do you tell him?
There's no telling what mad people will react to or how they will react. Most even very devout muslims do not find themselves willing to kill Rushdie however enraged they might be by his work. No one could reasonably expect a lifelong risk of assassination even if they could predict many might get upset - the axeman analogy does not work because the axeman was not standing in front of him with very clear imminent consequences for answering in the affirmative. The axeman would already have to seek out his work of their own volition.
I've said before Trump was wrong to say he won, and he should accept he lost. His constant whingeing about losing is tiresome.
And yet HRC - and others - were still pushing the line in 2019 / 2020 that Trump only got elected because of Russian help. HRC said Trump was not a legitimate President several years post-election.
You either believe in accepting the results or not. I believe Trump won in 2016 and Biden won in 2020. There are too many on here that will take the latter but place massive caveats on the former. That's not believing in democracy. That's accepting democracy only if it gives you the results you want.
I normally can't be bothered replying to too many things but since you do me the honour of mentioning me personally, I will reply the courtesy.
What I find personally most offensive about the likes of you and your ilk is your pure hypocrisy. To give an example. The reason why I mention HRC in the context of Jan 6th is that both Hilary's intentions as well as Trump's intentions in both those events were to delegitimise a genuinely elected President. The means by which both tried to get their preferred outcome were different, as were the tools, but the intention was the same - to get the candidate you didn't like out.
Yet you try and cloak your intentions in the language of a noble act. If Trump was barred tomorrow from standing - and indeed any Republican who wasn't Liz Cheney - you would be very happy in explaining why it was justified.
So spare me your Grade 1 * hypocrisy. The likes of you are one of the biggest threats to democracy because you believe you are right and refuse to accept you might be wrong. As I've asked before - and very few of you have answered with the honourable exception of the likes of @RochdalePioneers - if you are so convinced Trump is so evil, then I assume you believe any means are justified - including refusing to accepting an election results and - or a coup - to get rid of him. It's pretty obvious that's what you think but you have not got the guts to say it.
After reading all those Woke essays, I want seriously rightwing Republicans to win - just not Trump, he's toxic, mad, venal and a menacing narcissist
A radical right government is the only way America can save itself. Which is a damn shame, because the radical right in the USA is fucking nuts. But at least they are patriotic, and not social justice commies. The American Left will actually destroy America
Yeah but your obsession over woke has driven you as mad as a box of frogs. Or its just your age like your ranting about the music of today and how there's no good music anymore.
"Social justice commies" is something that frothing loons have been raving about for about 75 years. Have you got any reds under your bed?
1960s Leon would have been ranting about the music of the youth, counterculture, civil rights and so on.
@Leon is the best recruiting Sargeant for woke out there: his mouth frothes so much, that one assumes that he must be talking utter shit.
It's all in a working day to me but what I will say is that the aspect of Leon's (and indeed Mr Ed's) US commentary I find the most troubling - in fact it makes me tremble - is the relentless False Equivalence.
The notion that Trump and his MAGA cult - who have colonized the Republican Party, rejected the democratic process and poisoned the heads of a sizeable chunk of the population - are no more toxic and dangerous to the fabric and health of America than so-called 'wokery'. This is a plain verifiable falsehood.
And it's not just an airy fairy debating point this. False Equivalence is a deeply pernicious MO that's consistently used by all of the world's worst people - as well as by Leon and Mr Ed. Eg Putin does it all the time. Equates some horror he's perpetrating with a crime committed against Russia that's either made up or wildly exaggerated.
Terrorists do it too. Eg one of them gets caught and banged up and becomes a prisoner. So the outfit goes and kidnaps some innocent and now THEY have a prisoner. What do they do? They offer a swap. "You release our prisoner and we'll release yours". That's blackmail of course but it's also an example of using False Equivalence for nefarious ends. Like Leon and Mr Ed do - although not for *equally* nefarious ends as terrorists and Putin obviously - that would be a False Equivalence.
Candidates are entitled to legally question election results, but once they have lost these challenges they HAVE to accept it, Only Trump has tried to hang on to power having lost by illegal and violent means. Here is just one example. I'm sure you know of many more. "Donald Trump: 'I just want to find 11,780 votes’" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-55524676
Trump won the Electoral College with some States being won by tiny majorities, he also lost the popular vote, that's not controversial. So it was close. It's well known that Russia was helping Trump whether he colluded with them or not. To quote Trump “And now Russia has disappeared because I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected.” It's hard to tell whether Russia's help was decisive or not but it was a factor. It's not a problem for HRC to state her opinion and it's not comparable to getting your supporters to attack congress in an attempt to steal an election.
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
Huffle, puffle. 50 odd people so far have died as a direct result of Rushdie's desire to cause a stir, in a way rather predictable when he published. People are often held responsible for the foreseeable consequrnces of their actions.
What utter shash. Someone writing a work of fiction is not responsible for the way irrational people choose to behave when they read it. It's not a 'direct result' of his writing, it is a direct result of utterly barmy people reacting in an insane way to a work of fiction. Anyone reacting violently to a story has the IQ and emotional intellect of a glass of water, however they defend themselves with religious conviction, and it is utterly wrongheaded to place the place for such fools to be denied agency by placing the blame on whoever 'provoked' them.
Does the concept of disproportionate response not exist for some people? If I stamp on your foot you are not justified in shooting me in the face, nor would it rationally be described as a direct result of my provocation, since no rational person would react in such a disproportionate way.
I just do not see how it is possible to place responsibility for the actions of self evidently crazy people - you would have to be crazy to respond so - at the hands of a novellist.
Yes, but if you are sane and know the mad person is mad that's not much of a defence is it? If a demented axeman asks you if you know where his wife is do you tell him?
There's no telling what mad people will react to or how they will react. Most even very devout muslims do not find themselves willing to kill Rushdie however enraged they might be by his work. No one could reasonably expect a lifelong risk of assassination even if they could predict many might get upset - the axeman analogy does not work because the axeman was not standing in front of him with very clear imminent consequences for answering in the affirmative. The axeman would already have to seek out his work of their own volition.
It was immensely predictable.
There is no right not to be offended.
No, but it's prudent to consider the likely actions of people who wrongly think they enjoy that right.
FPT IshmaelZ Posts: 19,116 3:35PM DavidL said: » show previous quotes To take one very obvious example by the same logic the fact that in almost every culture women have a better life expectancy than men must conclusively prove that society is inherently biased against men and fails to recognise inherent female privilege, that any suggestion that women are disadvantaged or ever have been disadvantaged is a failure to recognise the structual biases that cause men to die at an earlier age.
It is, quite frankly, both mad and depressing.
@IshmaelZ said: So you really think that black people are *biologically* less well able than whites and Asians to be educated so as to become competent doctors, and that there is inherent white privilege here which qwe should just put up with cos there is nothing to be done about it? @DavidL says No, of course I don't. What I do say is that the answer to that problem is to look at the societal issues that result in that under performance and seek to address them. Which is not easy. But the answer is not to appoint doctors who come from a minority who are, bluntly, not up to the rather difficult job.
30 odd years ago someone noticed that sheriffs were male, pale and stale. This, of course, reflected the profession that they had gained the requisite experience in. The answer was to appoint many female sheriffs. In my experience female solicitors, such as my wife, hated this because along with many excellent appointments they also appointed various incompetent female sheriffs who gave female sheriffs a bad name. Of course, they also appointed a lot of seriously incompetent male sheriffs too but they did not stand out so much amongst the profession. Those I spoke to wanted female Sheriffs to be appointed on merit, given a fair and even crack of the whip and an equal chance.
Now, 30 odd years on, the profession is becoming increasingly female dominated as is the bench, albeit 20 years or so behind. The focus now is on whether there are sufficient minorities and we are in danger of making the same mistakes again.
As a society we aspire to true equality of opportunity and rightly so. That means that those who face structural problems, whether of poverty, social breakdown, poor schooling or whatever should indeed be helped but the ideal that all are selected on merit is a really important principle and should not be abandoned, whether for gender or racial reasons.
At what point does law start seeing the same problems as medicine, that encouragement of women to join these professions leads eventually to shortages, as they effectively “retire” in their thirties?
I don't think that it will. The key difference is that it is relatively easy and cheap to train lawyers. We don't need lots of kit or fancy labs. We get books and precedent, pretty much all of which are now available online.
The problem in medicine is that UK plc invests very serious money into training a doctor. If that doctor goes part time for family reasons in his or her 30s we have got a very poor return on that investment. Ditto if they retire in their late 50s because they have maxed out their pensions.
Like I've said before, we should pay doctors less so that they have to work full time to make ends meet and have to keep at it until they reach retirement age. It's not like they are capable of doing something else instead, and there will be no shortage of teenagers [whose parents are] desperate [for them to] get into med school.
Not sure about the last bit of that. Pharmacy pay rates, particularly for locums, dipped markedly with the increase in pharmacy graduates (last 10-15 years with new schools of pharmacy). This made it a lot harder to recruit students, and the ones who did come had on average worse grades. If you degrade doctors pay and conditions too much, you may choke the supply too. If you are a bright kid, there are many high paid careers. Engineering, the city, law, artisanal flint knapping. Medicine is popular not just because of a desire to help people, but because of pay and the chance to retire young(ish) and work part time.
Medicine is popular so that parents can say "My son/daughter is a doctor".
The decline in Foundation Doctors (Interns in America) continuing in training in either hospital specialities or General Practice is quite stark over the last decade.
Some go into research, locums, etc and apply later on but increasingly leave the profession entirely.
Blimey. That's a leaky pipeline. What happened?
Very poor retention at all levels suggests that it isn't an appealing career anymore.
Indeed.
Poor retention rates are a huge red flag that something is profoundly wrong.
On that basis, I assume you think West Germany - and indeed Germany now - are very wrong to have the measures they have in place against the Nazis? Let the fascists show their swastikas et al as long as they don't act in an extremist fashion. Correct?
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
You can have a free, liberal society or a fully multicutultural one, including lots of hardline Muslims.
You cannot have both or they will conflict, that is just the reality left liberals need to face. Either you preserve a free, liberal society and tighten immigration controls to filter out extremists or you have open door immigration but with restraint needed on free speech or you get conflict
I think you can as long on the extremists don't go around stabbing people.
This is largely the case in the UK. We just need to crack down on anyone who wants to impose their views on others outwith the democratic system, by violence or otherwise.
Yes, I agree. I'm fine with other people having views I consider extreme, so long as they don't try to attack others. If they do, they should be locked up. Conversely, I'm against people who attack others, even in pursuit of moderate views (e.g. I'd be against throwing stones at a Britain First rally).
I think Germany is probably a special case because of their history of people in that group killing millions, but even there I'm not sure. But as an MP I defended the right of the BNP to hold a meeting in my constituency (and I worked with a BNP member on a campaign to protect a historic building - a better use of his time than ranting, I felt).
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
Huffle, puffle. 50 odd people so far have died as a direct result of Rushdie's desire to cause a stir, in a way rather predictable when he published. People are often held responsible for the foreseeable consequrnces of their actions.
What utter shash. Someone writing a work of fiction is not responsible for the way irrational people choose to behave when they read it. It's not a 'direct result' of his writing, it is a direct result of utterly barmy people reacting in an insane way to a work of fiction. Anyone reacting violently to a story has the IQ and emotional intellect of a glass of water, however they defend themselves with religious conviction, and it is utterly wrongheaded to place the place for such fools to be denied agency by placing the blame on whoever 'provoked' them.
Does the concept of disproportionate response not exist for some people? If I stamp on your foot you are not justified in shooting me in the face, nor would it rationally be described as a direct result of my provocation, since no rational person would react in such a disproportionate way.
I just do not see how it is possible to place responsibility for the actions of self evidently crazy people - you would have to be crazy to respond so - at the hands of a novellist.
Yes, but if you are sane and know the mad person is mad that's not much of a defence is it? If a demented axeman asks you if you know where his wife is do you tell him?
There's no telling what mad people will react to or how they will react. Most even very devout muslims do not find themselves willing to kill Rushdie however enraged they might be by his work. No one could reasonably expect a lifelong risk of assassination even if they could predict many might get upset - the axeman analogy does not work because the axeman was not standing in front of him with very clear imminent consequences for answering in the affirmative. The axeman would already have to seek out his work of their own volition.
It was immensely predictable.
And so the existence of crazy people reacting crazily is his fault and he should be held responsible for the actions of those crazy people?
Well what do you think about the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is?
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
Huffle, puffle. 50 odd people so far have died as a direct result of Rushdie's desire to cause a stir, in a way rather predictable when he published. People are often held responsible for the foreseeable consequrnces of their actions.
What utter shash. Someone writing a work of fiction is not responsible for the way irrational people choose to behave when they read it. It's not a 'direct result' of his writing, it is a direct result of utterly barmy people reacting in an insane way to a work of fiction. Anyone reacting violently to a story has the IQ and emotional intellect of a glass of water, however they defend themselves with religious conviction, and it is utterly wrongheaded to place the place for such fools to be denied agency by placing the blame on whoever 'provoked' them.
Does the concept of disproportionate response not exist for some people? If I stamp on your foot you are not justified in shooting me in the face, nor would it rationally be described as a direct result of my provocation, since no rational person would react in such a disproportionate way.
I just do not see how it is possible to place responsibility for the actions of self evidently crazy people - you would have to be crazy to respond so - at the hands of a novellist.
Yes, but if you are sane and know the mad person is mad that's not much of a defence is it? If a demented axeman asks you if you know where his wife is do you tell him?
There's no telling what mad people will react to or how they will react. Most even very devout muslims do not find themselves willing to kill Rushdie however enraged they might be by his work. No one could reasonably expect a lifelong risk of assassination even if they could predict many might get upset - the axeman analogy does not work because the axeman was not standing in front of him with very clear imminent consequences for answering in the affirmative. The axeman would already have to seek out his work of their own volition.
It was immensely predictable.
There is no right not to be offended.
No, but it's prudent to consider the likely actions of people who wrongly think they enjoy that right.
It being prudent to do so would not make the imprudent 'responsible' for the actions of those people. It's still their own choice to respond in such a manner.
We might consider the imprudent to also be unwise. But they would not be responsible.
FPT IshmaelZ Posts: 19,116 3:35PM DavidL said: » show previous quotes To take one very obvious example by the same logic the fact that in almost every culture women have a better life expectancy than men must conclusively prove that society is inherently biased against men and fails to recognise inherent female privilege, that any suggestion that women are disadvantaged or ever have been disadvantaged is a failure to recognise the structual biases that cause men to die at an earlier age.
It is, quite frankly, both mad and depressing.
@IshmaelZ said: So you really think that black people are *biologically* less well able than whites and Asians to be educated so as to become competent doctors, and that there is inherent white privilege here which qwe should just put up with cos there is nothing to be done about it? @DavidL says No, of course I don't. What I do say is that the answer to that problem is to look at the societal issues that result in that under performance and seek to address them. Which is not easy. But the answer is not to appoint doctors who come from a minority who are, bluntly, not up to the rather difficult job.
30 odd years ago someone noticed that sheriffs were male, pale and stale. This, of course, reflected the profession that they had gained the requisite experience in. The answer was to appoint many female sheriffs. In my experience female solicitors, such as my wife, hated this because along with many excellent appointments they also appointed various incompetent female sheriffs who gave female sheriffs a bad name. Of course, they also appointed a lot of seriously incompetent male sheriffs too but they did not stand out so much amongst the profession. Those I spoke to wanted female Sheriffs to be appointed on merit, given a fair and even crack of the whip and an equal chance.
Now, 30 odd years on, the profession is becoming increasingly female dominated as is the bench, albeit 20 years or so behind. The focus now is on whether there are sufficient minorities and we are in danger of making the same mistakes again.
As a society we aspire to true equality of opportunity and rightly so. That means that those who face structural problems, whether of poverty, social breakdown, poor schooling or whatever should indeed be helped but the ideal that all are selected on merit is a really important principle and should not be abandoned, whether for gender or racial reasons.
At what point does law start seeing the same problems as medicine, that encouragement of women to join these professions leads eventually to shortages, as they effectively “retire” in their thirties?
I don't think that it will. The key difference is that it is relatively easy and cheap to train lawyers. We don't need lots of kit or fancy labs. We get books and precedent, pretty much all of which are now available online.
The problem in medicine is that UK plc invests very serious money into training a doctor. If that doctor goes part time for family reasons in his or her 30s we have got a very poor return on that investment. Ditto if they retire in their late 50s because they have maxed out their pensions.
Like I've said before, we should pay doctors less so that they have to work full time to make ends meet and have to keep at it until they reach retirement age. It's not like they are capable of doing something else instead, and there will be no shortage of teenagers [whose parents are] desperate [for them to] get into med school.
Not sure about the last bit of that. Pharmacy pay rates, particularly for locums, dipped markedly with the increase in pharmacy graduates (last 10-15 years with new schools of pharmacy). This made it a lot harder to recruit students, and the ones who did come had on average worse grades. If you degrade doctors pay and conditions too much, you may choke the supply too. If you are a bright kid, there are many high paid careers. Engineering, the city, law, artisanal flint knapping. Medicine is popular not just because of a desire to help people, but because of pay and the chance to retire young(ish) and work part time.
Medicine is popular so that parents can say "My son/daughter is a doctor".
The decline in Foundation Doctors (Interns in America) continuing in training in either hospital specialities or General Practice is quite stark over the last decade.
Some go into research, locums, etc and apply later on but increasingly leave the profession entirely.
Blimey. That's a leaky pipeline. What happened?
Very poor retention at all levels suggests that it isn't an appealing career anymore.
Indeed.
Poor retention rates are a huge red flag that something is profoundly wrong.
Ah, you have read my posts on education?
I'm glad to hear somebody does...I'd hate to think nobody benefitted from my letting off steam at how much I hate the drunken mofos wisdom and experience.
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
Huffle, puffle. 50 odd people so far have died as a direct result of Rushdie's desire to cause a stir, in a way rather predictable when he published. People are often held responsible for the foreseeable consequrnces of their actions.
What utter shash. Someone writing a work of fiction is not responsible for the way irrational people choose to behave when they read it. It's not a 'direct result' of his writing, it is a direct result of utterly barmy people reacting in an insane way to a work of fiction. Anyone reacting violently to a story has the IQ and emotional intellect of a glass of water, however they defend themselves with religious conviction, and it is utterly wrongheaded to place the place for such fools to be denied agency by placing the blame on whoever 'provoked' them.
Does the concept of disproportionate response not exist for some people? If I stamp on your foot you are not justified in shooting me in the face, nor would it rationally be described as a direct result of my provocation, since no rational person would react in such a disproportionate way.
I just do not see how it is possible to place responsibility for the actions of self evidently crazy people - you would have to be crazy to respond so - at the hands of a novellist.
Yes, but if you are sane and know the mad person is mad that's not much of a defence is it? If a demented axeman asks you if you know where his wife is do you tell him?
There's no telling what mad people will react to or how they will react. Most even very devout muslims do not find themselves willing to kill Rushdie however enraged they might be by his work. No one could reasonably expect a lifelong risk of assassination even if they could predict many might get upset - the axeman analogy does not work because the axeman was not standing in front of him with very clear imminent consequences for answering in the affirmative. The axeman would already have to seek out his work of their own volition.
It was immensely predictable.
And so the existence of crazy people reacting crazily is his fault and he should be held responsible for the actions of those crazy people?
Well what do you think about the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is?
I think the analogy does not apply, for the reasons I gave. It would be more like the axeman hearing from second hand sources that the man in question did something he did not like, deciding to murder, travelling a long way to do so, and then doing so regardless of whether they even saw or heard what the man actually said.
In any case if we do accept the analogy it would still be the responsibility of the axeman - someone so demented might well kill you and the wife, hunting them down, regardless of what you say, or find another random target for their murderous rage. Nothing the man did would explain the axeman's actions.
It's your focus on behing responsible I take most issue with. Most of us would be more practical and prudent even though in theory I should have no fear in pissing on a quran if I wanted to be an offensive git. But I'd not be responsible for what happened to me or others if I did behave like a git, since acting violently to that is not rational.
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
Huffle, puffle. 50 odd people so far have died as a direct result of Rushdie's desire to cause a stir, in a way rather predictable when he published. People are often held responsible for the foreseeable consequrnces of their actions.
What utter shash. Someone writing a work of fiction is not responsible for the way irrational people choose to behave when they read it. It's not a 'direct result' of his writing, it is a direct result of utterly barmy people reacting in an insane way to a work of fiction. Anyone reacting violently to a story has the IQ and emotional intellect of a glass of water, however they defend themselves with religious conviction, and it is utterly wrongheaded to place the place for such fools to be denied agency by placing the blame on whoever 'provoked' them.
Does the concept of disproportionate response not exist for some people? If I stamp on your foot you are not justified in shooting me in the face, nor would it rationally be described as a direct result of my provocation, since no rational person would react in such a disproportionate way.
I just do not see how it is possible to place responsibility for the actions of self evidently crazy people - you would have to be crazy to respond so - at the hands of a novellist.
Yes, but if you are sane and know the mad person is mad that's not much of a defence is it? If a demented axeman asks you if you know where his wife is do you tell him?
There's no telling what mad people will react to or how they will react. Most even very devout muslims do not find themselves willing to kill Rushdie however enraged they might be by his work. No one could reasonably expect a lifelong risk of assassination even if they could predict many might get upset - the axeman analogy does not work because the axeman was not standing in front of him with very clear imminent consequences for answering in the affirmative. The axeman would already have to seek out his work of their own volition.
It was immensely predictable.
There is no right not to be offended.
No, but it's prudent to consider the likely actions of people who wrongly think they enjoy that right.
I normally can't be bothered replying to too many things but since you do me the honour of mentioning me personally, I will reply the courtesy.
What I find personally most offensive about the likes of you and your ilk is your pure hypocrisy. To give an example. The reason why I mention HRC in the context of Jan 6th is that both Hilary's intentions as well as Trump's intentions in both those events were to delegitimise a genuinely elected President. The means by which both tried to get their preferred outcome were different, as were the tools, but the intention was the same - to get the candidate you didn't like out.
Yet you try and cloak your intentions in the language of a noble act. If Trump was barred tomorrow from standing - and indeed any Republican who wasn't Liz Cheney - you would be very happy in explaining why it was justified.
So spare me your Grade 1 * hypocrisy. The likes of you are one of the biggest threats to democracy because you believe you are right and refuse to accept you might be wrong. As I've asked before - and very few of you have answered with the honourable exception of the likes of @RochdalePioneers - if you are so convinced Trump is so evil, then I assume you believe any means are justified - including refusing to accepting an election results and - or a coup - to get rid of him. It's pretty obvious that's what you think but you have not got the guts to say it.
After reading all those Woke essays, I want seriously rightwing Republicans to win - just not Trump, he's toxic, mad, venal and a menacing narcissist
A radical right government is the only way America can save itself. Which is a damn shame, because the radical right in the USA is fucking nuts. But at least they are patriotic, and not social justice commies. The American Left will actually destroy America
Yeah but your obsession over woke has driven you as mad as a box of frogs. Or its just your age like your ranting about the music of today and how there's no good music anymore.
"Social justice commies" is something that frothing loons have been raving about for about 75 years. Have you got any reds under your bed?
1960s Leon would have been ranting about the music of the youth, counterculture, civil rights and so on.
@Leon is the best recruiting Sargeant for woke out there: his mouth frothes so much, that one assumes that he must be talking utter shit.
It's all in a working day to me but what I will say is that the aspect of Leon's (and indeed Mr Ed's) US commentary I find the most troubling - in fact it makes me tremble - is the relentless False Equivalence.
The notion that Trump and his MAGA cult - who have colonized the Republican Party, rejected the democratic process and poisoned the heads of a sizeable chunk of the population - are no more toxic and dangerous to the fabric and health of America than so-called 'wokery'. This is a plain verifiable falsehood.
And it's not just an airy fairy debating point this. False Equivalence is a deeply pernicious MO that's consistently used by all of the world's worst people - as well as by Leon and Mr Ed. Eg Putin does it all the time. Equates some horror he's perpetrating with a crime committed against Russia that's either made up or wildly exaggerated.
Terrorists do it too. Eg one of them gets caught and banged up and becomes a prisoner. So the outfit goes and kidnaps some innocent and now THEY have a prisoner. What do they do? They offer a swap. "You release our prisoner and we'll release yours". That's blackmail of course but it's also an example of using False Equivalence for nefarious ends. Like Leon and Mr Ed do - although not for *equally* nefarious ends as terrorists and Putin obviously - that would be a False Equivalence.
Candidates are entitled to legally question election results, but once they have lost these challenges they HAVE to accept it, Only Trump has tried to hang on to power having lost by illegal and violent means. Here is just one example. I'm sure you know of many more. "Donald Trump: 'I just want to find 11,780 votes’" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-55524676
That is the important thing. Dozens and dozens of legal challenges, which were without basis, and then still trying to hold on. It wasn't simply the launching of challenges that was the issue, the process allows for that even if the number of baseless challenges showed it was being abused.
It was said by Ed "HRC said Trump was not a legitimate President several years post-election." So? That's free speech. Nobody stopped Trump with his 'Birtherism' campaign against Obama.
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
Huffle, puffle. 50 odd people so far have died as a direct result of Rushdie's desire to cause a stir, in a way rather predictable when he published. People are often held responsible for the foreseeable consequrnces of their actions.
What utter shash. Someone writing a work of fiction is not responsible for the way irrational people choose to behave when they read it. It's not a 'direct result' of his writing, it is a direct result of utterly barmy people reacting in an insane way to a work of fiction. Anyone reacting violently to a story has the IQ and emotional intellect of a glass of water, however they defend themselves with religious conviction, and it is utterly wrongheaded to place the place for such fools to be denied agency by placing the blame on whoever 'provoked' them.
Does the concept of disproportionate response not exist for some people? If I stamp on your foot you are not justified in shooting me in the face, nor would it rationally be described as a direct result of my provocation, since no rational person would react in such a disproportionate way.
I just do not see how it is possible to place responsibility for the actions of self evidently crazy people - you would have to be crazy to respond so - at the hands of a novellist.
Yes, but if you are sane and know the mad person is mad that's not much of a defence is it? If a demented axeman asks you if you know where his wife is do you tell him?
There's no telling what mad people will react to or how they will react. Most even very devout muslims do not find themselves willing to kill Rushdie however enraged they might be by his work. No one could reasonably expect a lifelong risk of assassination even if they could predict many might get upset - the axeman analogy does not work because the axeman was not standing in front of him with very clear imminent consequences for answering in the affirmative. The axeman would already have to seek out his work of their own volition.
It was immensely predictable.
And so the existence of crazy people reacting crazily is his fault and he should be held responsible for the actions of those crazy people?
Well what do you think about the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is?
I think the analogy does not apply, for the reasons I gave. It would be more like the axeman hearing from second hand sources that the man in question did something he did not like, deciding to murder, travelling a long way to do so, and then doing so regardless of whether they even saw or heard what the man actually said.
In any case if we do accept the analogy it would still be the responsibility of the axeman - someone so demented might well kill you and the wife, hunting them down, regardless of what you say, or find another random target for their murderous rage. Nothing the man did would explain the axeman's actions.
Well you are just wrong about all that. The likely reaction of the Muslim world was entirely obvious.
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
Huffle, puffle. 50 odd people so far have died as a direct result of Rushdie's desire to cause a stir, in a way rather predictable when he published. People are often held responsible for the foreseeable consequrnces of their actions.
What utter shash. Someone writing a work of fiction is not responsible for the way irrational people choose to behave when they read it. It's not a 'direct result' of his writing, it is a direct result of utterly barmy people reacting in an insane way to a work of fiction. Anyone reacting violently to a story has the IQ and emotional intellect of a glass of water, however they defend themselves with religious conviction, and it is utterly wrongheaded to place the place for such fools to be denied agency by placing the blame on whoever 'provoked' them.
Does the concept of disproportionate response not exist for some people? If I stamp on your foot you are not justified in shooting me in the face, nor would it rationally be described as a direct result of my provocation, since no rational person would react in such a disproportionate way.
I just do not see how it is possible to place responsibility for the actions of self evidently crazy people - you would have to be crazy to respond so - at the hands of a novellist.
Yes, but if you are sane and know the mad person is mad that's not much of a defence is it? If a demented axeman asks you if you know where his wife is do you tell him?
There's no telling what mad people will react to or how they will react. Most even very devout muslims do not find themselves willing to kill Rushdie however enraged they might be by his work. No one could reasonably expect a lifelong risk of assassination even if they could predict many might get upset - the axeman analogy does not work because the axeman was not standing in front of him with very clear imminent consequences for answering in the affirmative. The axeman would already have to seek out his work of their own volition.
It was immensely predictable.
There is no right not to be offended.
Might as well be. Pretty sure a lot of people think there is one as well, sadly.
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
Huffle, puffle. 50 odd people so far have died as a direct result of Rushdie's desire to cause a stir, in a way rather predictable when he published. People are often held responsible for the foreseeable consequrnces of their actions.
What utter shash. Someone writing a work of fiction is not responsible for the way irrational people choose to behave when they read it. It's not a 'direct result' of his writing, it is a direct result of utterly barmy people reacting in an insane way to a work of fiction. Anyone reacting violently to a story has the IQ and emotional intellect of a glass of water, however they defend themselves with religious conviction, and it is utterly wrongheaded to place the place for such fools to be denied agency by placing the blame on whoever 'provoked' them.
Does the concept of disproportionate response not exist for some people? If I stamp on your foot you are not justified in shooting me in the face, nor would it rationally be described as a direct result of my provocation, since no rational person would react in such a disproportionate way.
I just do not see how it is possible to place responsibility for the actions of self evidently crazy people - you would have to be crazy to respond so - at the hands of a novellist.
Yes, but if you are sane and know the mad person is mad that's not much of a defence is it? If a demented axeman asks you if you know where his wife is do you tell him?
There's no telling what mad people will react to or how they will react. Most even very devout muslims do not find themselves willing to kill Rushdie however enraged they might be by his work. No one could reasonably expect a lifelong risk of assassination even if they could predict many might get upset - the axeman analogy does not work because the axeman was not standing in front of him with very clear imminent consequences for answering in the affirmative. The axeman would already have to seek out his work of their own volition.
It was immensely predictable.
And so the existence of crazy people reacting crazily is his fault and he should be held responsible for the actions of those crazy people?
Well what do you think about the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is?
I think the analogy does not apply, for the reasons I gave. It would be more like the axeman hearing from second hand sources that the man in question did something he did not like, deciding to murder, travelling a long way to do so, and then doing so regardless of whether they even saw or heard what the man actually said.
In any case if we do accept the analogy it would still be the responsibility of the axeman - someone so demented might well kill you and the wife, hunting them down, regardless of what you say, or find another random target for their murderous rage. Nothing the man did would explain the axeman's actions.
Well you are just wrong about all that. The likely reaction of the Muslim world was entirely obvious.
I really don't think we are understanding one another at all. It being likely a tiny tiny majority of people would become murderously violent out of billions of muslims is irrelevant, to me, in it not being Rushdie's 'responsibility'.
We are not responsible for the irrationality of others.
Their actions are utterly irrational, since becoming murderous because you heard some guy wrote something (probably few read it) is the action of a disease dmind, therefore it is not his responsibility that those who are murderous react so.
Is he responsible for knowing many more might be offended? Sure, why not, but there's nothing wrong with offending people. If people get offended by a story they are broadcasting they are very superficial and childish in their faith anyway, that they cannot handle hearing something they do not like, it shows deep insecurity and possibly internal doubts about their own faith.
As is customary in these cases, alleged six photos, but only only one available. It’s good, but could be an object thrown into the air and snapped. This story was covered by the recent Craig Charles series, and I wonder if that’s why it’s surfaced now. Certainly intriguing. I don’t buy their story of terror though. I’d be fascinated, not terrified.
This one has been a staple of Nick Pope when hes whoring himself round the media. He 'had a blown up copy on the wall at the MoD' until it was mysteriously confiscated by superiors. Pope is about as trustworthy as a skunk imo, he enjoys the limelight way too much. A bit like Elizondo and his cheerleader Tom DeLonge in the States
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
Huffle, puffle. 50 odd people so far have died as a direct result of Rushdie's desire to cause a stir, in a way rather predictable when he published. People are often held responsible for the foreseeable consequrnces of their actions.
What utter shash. Someone writing a work of fiction is not responsible for the way irrational people choose to behave when they read it. It's not a 'direct result' of his writing, it is a direct result of utterly barmy people reacting in an insane way to a work of fiction. Anyone reacting violently to a story has the IQ and emotional intellect of a glass of water, however they defend themselves with religious conviction, and it is utterly wrongheaded for such fools to be denied agency by placing the blame on whoever 'provoked' them.
Does the concept of disproportionate response not exist for some people? If I stamp on your foot you are not justified in shooting me in the face, nor would it rationally be described as a direct result of my provocation, since no rational person would react in such a disproportionate way.
I just do not see how it is possible to place responsibility for the actions of self evidently crazy people - you would have to be crazy to respond so - at the hands of a novellist.
"Tory" is from the Irish word toraidhe meaning "Outlaw" or "Bandit". Never was a name more appropriate for the fools in question as they soak the rest of us to bribe their selectorate.
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
Huffle, puffle. 50 odd people so far have died as a direct result of Rushdie's desire to cause a stir, in a way rather predictable when he published. People are often held responsible for the foreseeable consequrnces of their actions.
What utter shash. Someone writing a work of fiction is not responsible for the way irrational people choose to behave when they read it. It's not a 'direct result' of his writing, it is a direct result of utterly barmy people reacting in an insane way to a work of fiction. Anyone reacting violently to a story has the IQ and emotional intellect of a glass of water, however they defend themselves with religious conviction, and it is utterly wrongheaded to place the place for such fools to be denied agency by placing the blame on whoever 'provoked' them.
Does the concept of disproportionate response not exist for some people? If I stamp on your foot you are not justified in shooting me in the face, nor would it rationally be described as a direct result of my provocation, since no rational person would react in such a disproportionate way.
I just do not see how it is possible to place responsibility for the actions of self evidently crazy people - you would have to be crazy to respond so - at the hands of a novellist.
Yes, but if you are sane and know the mad person is mad that's not much of a defence is it? If a demented axeman asks you if you know where his wife is do you tell him?
There's no telling what mad people will react to or how they will react. Most even very devout muslims do not find themselves willing to kill Rushdie however enraged they might be by his work. No one could reasonably expect a lifelong risk of assassination even if they could predict many might get upset - the axeman analogy does not work because the axeman was not standing in front of him with very clear imminent consequences for answering in the affirmative. The axeman would already have to seek out his work of their own volition.
It was immensely predictable.
And so the existence of crazy people reacting crazily is his fault and he should be held responsible for the actions of those crazy people?
Well what do you think about the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is?
I think the analogy does not apply, for the reasons I gave. It would be more like the axeman hearing from second hand sources that the man in question did something he did not like, deciding to murder, travelling a long way to do so, and then doing so regardless of whether they even saw or heard what the man actually said.
In any case if we do accept the analogy it would still be the responsibility of the axeman - someone so demented might well kill you and the wife, hunting them down, regardless of what you say, or find another random target for their murderous rage. Nothing the man did would explain the axeman's actions.
Well you are just wrong about all that. The likely reaction of the Muslim world was entirely obvious.
I really don't think we are understanding one another at all. It being likely a tiny tiny majority of people would become murderously violent out of billions of muslims is irrelevant, to me, in it not being Rushdie's 'responsibility'.
We are not responsible for the irrationality of others.
Their actions are utterly irrational, since becoming murderous because you heard some guy wrote something (probably few read it) is the action of a disease dmind, therefore it is not his responsibility that those who are murderous react so.
Is he responsible for knowing many more might be offended? Sure, why not, but there's nothing wrong with offending people. If people get offended by a story they are broadcasting they are very superficial and childish in their faith anyway, that they cannot handle hearing something they do not like, it shows deep insecurity and possibly internal doubts.
I am not responsible for the axeman being mad either
This is much less difficult than you are finding it
"Tory" is from the Irish word toraidhe meaning "Outlaw" or "Bandit". Never was a name more appropriate for the fools in question as they soak the rest of us to bribe their selectorate.
I believe toe-rag comes from the same source (as an insult, not an obsolete alternative for socks)
Comments
Calling a coward and liar a liar and a coward.
https://thescottishsun.co.uk/news/8402124/calvine-ufo-photos-ministry-of-defence/
https://twitter.com/tedgioia/status/1558134784714579970
But there is a lot of money to be made from giving such drugs to children with all the consequent medical damage they cause, surgery and making children life long patients.
Until the first successful lawsuit, at which point the industry will collapse because insurance coverage will disappear and the poor children who have been experimented on will be forgotten. This is shaping up to be quite the medical-legal scandal, as some have been warning for some time.
The event moderator was also attacked
She adds "He's getting the care that he needs"
https://twitter.com/AyshahTull/status/1558131564206252034
That attack was perpetrated by a man who was at the Capitol during the riot by Trump supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, and was reportedly motivated to attack FBI employees because of the search warrant on the former president’s residence.
Just like Dems responding to investigations into Hunter Biden’s laptop.
I think we can assume the governor is reasonable week informed.
The notion that Trump and his MAGA cult - who have colonized the Republican Party, rejected the democratic process and poisoned the heads of a sizeable chunk of the population - are no more toxic and dangerous to the fabric and health of America than so-called 'wokery'. This is a plain verifiable falsehood.
And it's not just an airy fairy debating point this. False Equivalence is a deeply pernicious MO that's consistently used by all of the world's worst people - as well as by Leon and Mr Ed. Eg Putin does it all the time. Equates some horror he's perpetrating with a crime committed against Russia that's either made up or wildly exaggerated.
Terrorists do it too. Eg one of them gets caught and banged up and becomes a prisoner. So the outfit goes and kidnaps some innocent and now THEY have a prisoner. What do they do? They offer a swap. "You release our prisoner and we'll release yours". That's blackmail of course but it's also an example of using False Equivalence for nefarious ends. Like Leon and Mr Ed do - although not for *equally* nefarious ends as terrorists and Putin obviously - that would be a False Equivalence.
Rushdie does not fall into either category.
"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible."
Those who think and speak freely are not those who deserve condemnation. Those who act violently, support, encourage, incite them or justify it or turn a blind eye to it out of moral and/or physical cowardice deserve all the condemnation going.
Lovely.
A civil war within the Republican party would be better than one nationally.
Really worried, not going to sleep a wink until I hear Sally has pulled through.
https://www.uapmedia.uk/articles/calvinerevealed
What I find personally most offensive about the likes of you and your ilk is your pure hypocrisy. To give an example. The reason why I mention HRC in the context of Jan 6th is that both Hilary's intentions as well as Trump's intentions in both those events were to delegitimise a genuinely elected President. The means by which both tried to get their preferred outcome were different, as were the tools, but the intention was the same - to get the candidate you didn't like out.
Yet you try and cloak your intentions in the language of a noble act. If Trump was barred tomorrow from standing - and indeed any Republican who wasn't Liz Cheney - you would be very happy in explaining why it was justified.
So spare me your Grade 1 * hypocrisy. The likes of you are one of the biggest threats to democracy because you believe you are right and refuse to accept you might be wrong. As I've asked before - and very few of you have answered with the honourable exception of the likes of @RochdalePioneers - if you are so convinced Trump is so evil, then I assume you believe any means are justified - including refusing to accepting an election results and - or a coup - to get rid of him. It's pretty obvious that's what you think but you have not got the guts to say it.
Clear. And. Obvious.
Anyway a chance to link to the Question Time discussion on Rushdie's knighthood from 2007.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUJF4F10uk8
You cannot have both or they will conflict, that is just the reality left liberals need to face. Either you preserve a free, liberal society and tighten immigration controls to filter out extremists or you have open door immigration but with restraint needed on free speech or you get conflict
This is largely the case in the UK. We just need to crack down on anyone who wants to impose their views on others outwith the democratic system, by violence or otherwise.
Not taking actions we would otherwise take for fear of giving offence to people who would respond with violence is deeply irrational.
It's not multiculturalism to kowtow to thuggery.
The problem becomes is that doesn't tackle the problem at its root, only when it's expressed itself - and likely after others have been harmed.
It should be pretty an open and shut case - it yoh believe in women's rights, you should not be tolerating a culture that sees women as inferior and / or imposes practices on women that mark them as second class citizens. You wouldn't accept it if a bunch of right wing gammons did it.
So perhaps quote is from NY State Police, instead of NYPD?
Only Trump has tried to hang on to power having lost by illegal and violent means. Here is just one example. I'm sure you know of many more.
"Donald Trump: 'I just want to find 11,780 votes’"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-55524676
Does the concept of disproportionate response not exist for some people? If I stamp on your foot you are not justified in shooting me in the face, nor would it rationally be described as a direct result of my provocation, since no rational person would react in such a disproportionate way.
I just do not see how it is possible to place responsibility for the actions of self evidently crazy people - you would have to be crazy to respond so - at the hands of a novellist.
On that basis, I assume you think West Germany - and indeed Germany now - are very wrong to have the measures they have in place against the Nazis? Let the fascists show their swastikas et al as long as they don't act in an extremist fashion. Correct?
Only way it doesn't happen is if the feds have finally got their man or God intervenes.
And yet HRC - and others - were still pushing the line in 2019 / 2020 that Trump only got elected because of Russian help. HRC said Trump was not a legitimate President several years post-election.
You either believe in accepting the results or not. I believe Trump won in 2016 and Biden won in 2020. There are too many on here that will take the latter but place massive caveats on the former. That's not believing in democracy. That's accepting democracy only if it gives you the results you want.
I just heard a water industry story that a national newspaper is working on and it’s a total shocker. More later.
https://twitter.com/feargal_sharkey/status/1558120876431839233?s=21&t=nr9yzaR3HvuG8v9ByIwG0Q
So it was close.
It's well known that Russia was helping Trump whether he colluded with them or not. To quote Trump
“And now Russia has disappeared because I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected.”
It's hard to tell whether Russia's help was decisive or not but it was a factor. It's not a problem for HRC to state her opinion and it's not comparable to getting your supporters to attack congress in an attempt to steal an election.
Poor retention rates are a huge red flag that something is profoundly wrong.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/01/15/rise-fall-united-states-financial-empire-dollar-global-currency/
We might consider the imprudent to also be unwise. But they would not be responsible.
I'm glad to hear somebody does...I'd hate to think nobody benefitted from my
letting off steam at how much I hate the drunken mofoswisdom and experience.In any case if we do accept the analogy it would still be the responsibility of the axeman - someone so demented might well kill you and the wife, hunting them down, regardless of what you say, or find another random target for their murderous rage. Nothing the man did would explain the axeman's actions.
It's your focus on behing responsible I take most issue with. Most of us would be more practical and prudent even though in theory I should have no fear in pissing on a quran if I wanted to be an offensive git. But I'd not be responsible for what happened to me or others if I did behave like a git, since acting violently to that is not rational.
"HRC said Trump was not a legitimate President several years post-election."
So? That's free speech. Nobody stopped Trump with his 'Birtherism' campaign against Obama.
We are not responsible for the irrationality of others.
Their actions are utterly irrational, since becoming murderous because you heard some guy wrote something (probably few read it) is the action of a disease dmind, therefore it is not his responsibility that those who are murderous react so.
Is he responsible for knowing many more might be offended? Sure, why not, but there's nothing wrong with offending people. If people get offended by a story they are broadcasting they are very superficial and childish in their faith anyway, that they cannot handle hearing something they do not like, it shows deep insecurity and possibly internal doubts about their own faith.
https://twitter.com/ASLEFunion/status/1557863712526139394
https://twitter.com/nickpopemod/status/1558149101606166534?t=qHtYikuR6qZmaYVD1nE-tw&s=19
This is much less difficult than you are finding it