"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've always loved how perjorative labels can be coopted by the group it targets.
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.
FWIW, I can see why West Germany had it originally but now it's become totally outdated. The chances of a new Adolf Hitler are gratefully close to zero.
I do think it's important to work with opponents when it's right. I also think it's important to recognise sometimes we are wrong and / or someone else might be right.
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?
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.
What do you mean the "Muslim world"? Rushdie himself is a Muslim.
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
I'm not finding the issue difficult at all, it is commendably clear cut - murderers (or prospective murderers in this case) are responsible for their own actions, their purported justifications are nonsense, and we should not lend weight to their irrational justificaitons.
You are the one insisting a novelist is 'responsible' for deaths undertaken by crazy people on the spurious grounds that it was clear people would be offended. That is what I find baffling. People get offended all the time but don't become murderous (including most muslims on this very issue), so why you think that makes the offender responsible I cannot understand, and from rereading the posts you don't seem to have explained it either. Just that it would have been prudent not to do it, ergo he is responsible for an irrational response.
"Even those sympathetic to Truss expect a U-turn on those handouts, in a climate where focus group participants talk about moving their elderly parents in with them for the winter because it’s the only way everyone can afford to keep warm."
1. The American system is what it is. Regardless of whether Trump didn't win the popular vote and how close it was in swing states, he won according to the system. So stop putting a caveat on it to imply in some way his victory is less legitimate.
2. The Russian angle is bollocks. Not only that, it also doesn't make sense. Russia intervened decisively enough in 2016 to swing it to Trump but, in 2020, and having got the President they elected, they then decided not to do anything and / or couldn't? How crap is that line of argument. Just accept Trump won in 2016 and he won without the conspiracy theory nonsense about Russians swinging the result.
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.
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
I'm not finding the issue difficult at all, it is commendably clear cut - murderers are responsible for their own actions, their purported justifications are nonsense, and we should not lend weight to their irrational justificaitons.
You are the one insisting a novelist is 'responsible' for deaths undertaken by crazy people on the spurious grounds that it was clear people would be offended. That is what I find baffling. People get offended all the time but don't become murderous (including most muslims on this very issue), so why you think that makes the offender responsible I cannot understand, and from rereading the posts you don't seem to have explained it either. Just that it would have been prudent not to do it, ergo he is responsible for an irrational response.
People get irritated with their wives all the time without taking an axe to them. If you know that a specific husband is likely to go down the axe route you have a higher than usual duty to think what you tell him about his wife's location.
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.
What do you mean the "Muslim world"? Rushdie himself is a Muslim.
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?
As you would still be allowing open door immigration, as per my earlier post, not the tighter controls needed
1. The American system is what it is. Regardless of whether Trump didn't win the popular vote and how close it was in swing states, he won according to the system. So stop putting a caveat on it to imply in some way his victory is less legitimate.
It's a gerrymander - small, Republican states get way more electors per head of population. That's why he "won" in 2016, despite losing the nationwide vote, to HRC of all people!
"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've always loved how perjorative labels can be coopted by the group it targets.
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 - if you 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.
Agreed. That is, of course, also the problem with the current incarnation of the GOP.
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.
What do you mean the "Muslim world"? Rushdie himself is a Muslim.
So what?
You're treating Muslims as if they all think alike.
1. The American system is what it is. Regardless of whether Trump didn't win the popular vote and how close it was in swing states, he won according to the system. So stop putting a caveat on it to imply in some way his victory is less legitimate.
It's a gerrymander - small, Republican states get way more electors per head of population. That's why he "won" in 2016, despite losing the nationwide vote, to HRC of all people!
Actually until the California results came in in 2016 Trump led the popular vote. Excluding California, Trump won the popular vote in 2016 as well as the EC
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?
As you would still be allowing open door immigration, as per my earlier post, not the tighter controls needed
I did not comment on having open door immigration.
Your words were an option that 'you preserve a free, liberal society and tighten immigration controls to filter out extremists'.
My point was that tightening immigration will not capture all extremists since even if we had zero immigration there are extremists already here, who can be influenced, so even zero immigration would not solve the problem as you suggest it would.
Whether you tighten immigration or loosen it my point was the same, being free and liberal and also react to the extremists that are present, however many there are. You may feel tighter immigration will help with that, others may not agree, but that is a separate matter. Feel free to read my point in the context of also having tighter immigration controls.
1. The American system is what it is. Regardless of whether Trump didn't win the popular vote and how close it was in swing states, he won according to the system. So stop putting a caveat on it to imply in some way his victory is less legitimate.
It's a gerrymander - small, Republican states get way more electors per head of population. That's why he "won" in 2016, despite losing the nationwide vote, to HRC of all people!
It is the system they've chosen, however, MrEd is right about that. He lost the nationwide vote by even more in 2020 but it was perilously close in some 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 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.
What do you mean the "Muslim world"? Rushdie himself is a Muslim.
So what?
You're treating Muslims as if they all think alike.
No I am not
You are wrong anyway. Rushdie was born into a Muslim family, had informally apostasised at the relevant time and ostentatiously and ineffectively re embraced the faith after the fatwa was published. By the same token I am a Christian but seem to manage to offend many believers by stating the sufficiently obvious point that Christ was an active homosexual.
One of the things we all need to do in the so-called Culture War is to retain at least a modicum of proportionality imho.
Some battles are important, others not.
So what if a theatre company puts on a play which twists history in a new and made-up, creative way? Shakespeare had no problem with this. There's a reason they are called 'plays'.
How many people will see this? A few thousand at most.
It is not the end of western civilization as we know it.
Whereas the article @Leon posted which seems to say medicine should be totally reinvented because it is racist to its very core is more of an issue.
1. The American system is what it is. Regardless of whether Trump didn't win the popular vote and how close it was in swing states, he won according to the system. So stop putting a caveat on it to imply in some way his victory is less legitimate.
2. The Russian angle is bollocks. Not only that, it also doesn't make sense. Russia intervened decisively enough in 2016 to swing it to Trump but, in 2020, and having got the President they elected, they then decided not to do anything and / or couldn't? How crap is that line of argument. Just accept Trump won in 2016 and he won without the conspiracy theory nonsense about Russians swinging the result.
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.
Have you forgotten Trump's first impeachment and his withholding aid to Ukraine?
Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.
Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.
Twit. I can't believe that there are people too dim to understand the axeman point.
One of the things we all need to do in the so-called Culture War is to retain at least a modicum of proportionality imho.
Some battles are important, others not.
So what if a theatre company puts on a play which twists history in a new and made-up, creative way? Shakespeare had no problem with this. There's a reason they are called 'plays'.
How many people will see this? A few thousand at most.
It is not the end of western civilization as we know it.
Whereas the article @Leon posted which seems to say medicine should be totally reinvented because it is racist to its very core is more of an issue.
I agree. I said in the prior thread it’s a drama not a documentary. Like the BAME woman playing Ann Boleyn I just cannot find it in me to be annoyed by it.
Don’t like it, don’t watch it.
I’d rather they pushed boundaries than delivered uniformity.
Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.
Twit. I can't believe that there are people too dim to understand the axeman point.
Twat. I can't believe that there are people too thick to understand that people are in control of their OWN actions.
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.
What do you mean the "Muslim world"? Rushdie himself is a Muslim.
So what?
You're treating Muslims as if they all think alike.
No I am not
You are wrong anyway. Rushdie was born into a Muslim family, had informally apostasised at the relevant time and ostentatiously and ineffectively re embraced the faith after the fatwa was published. By the same token I am a Christian but seem to manage to offend many believers by stating the sufficiently obvious point that Christ was an active homosexual.
You certainly offend many with that, when Christ was most likely not sexual, he was focused on his preaching and message. However fortunately for you yes Justin Welby and Pope Francis are not going to impose a Fatwa on your head calling for you to be killed even if you offend them with such views!
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.
What do you mean the "Muslim world"? Rushdie himself is a Muslim.
So what?
You're treating Muslims as if they all think alike.
No I am not
You are wrong anyway. Rushdie was born into a Muslim family, had informally apostasised at the relevant time and ostentatiously and ineffectively re embraced the faith after the fatwa was published. By the same token I am a Christian but seem to manage to offend many believers by stating the sufficiently obvious point that Christ was an active homosexual.
You certainly offend many with that, when Christ was most likely not sexual, he was focused on his preaching and message. However fortunately for you yes Justin Welby and Pope Francis are not going to impose a Fatwa on your head calling for you to be killed even if you offend them with such views!
Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.
Twit. I can't believe that there are people too dim to understand the axeman point.
Twat. I can't believe that there are people too thick to understand that people are in control of their OWN actions.
OK
Answer the question.
Do you have any criticism at all of the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is? Any criticism at all?
Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.
Getting a little chilly here now. Had a sea haar most of the day. And a little mizzle. Am thinking about digging out a jumper.
Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.
Twit. I can't believe that there are people too dim to understand the axeman point.
Twat. I can't believe that there are people too thick to understand that people are in control of their OWN actions.
OK
Answer the question.
Do you have any criticism at all of the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is? Any criticism at all?
If I were to pen a PB thread entitled "IshmaelZ is GAY!", would you have a right to chop my head off with an axe? Yes or no?
1. The American system is what it is. Regardless of whether Trump didn't win the popular vote and how close it was in swing states, he won according to the system. So stop putting a caveat on it to imply in some way his victory is less legitimate.
2. The Russian angle is bollocks. Not only that, it also doesn't make sense. Russia intervened decisively enough in 2016 to swing it to Trump but, in 2020, and having got the President they elected, they then decided not to do anything and / or couldn't? How crap is that line of argument. Just accept Trump won in 2016 and he won without the conspiracy theory nonsense about Russians swinging the result.
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.
Have you forgotten Trump's first impeachment and his withholding aid to Ukraine?
That, though, isn’t really relevant to the outcome if the election. Even if Trump had been successfully impeached, all it would have meant was Mike Pence becoming President.
One of the things we all need to do in the so-called Culture War is to retain at least a modicum of proportionality imho.
Some battles are important, others not.
So what if a theatre company puts on a play which twists history in a new and made-up, creative way? Shakespeare had no problem with this. There's a reason they are called 'plays'.
How many people will see this? A few thousand at most.
It is not the end of western civilization as we know it.
Whereas the article @Leon posted which seems to say medicine should be totally reinvented because it is racist to its very core is more of an issue.
Quite. The Arts have been up its own arse searching for cutting edge social commentary forever, its not new, nor that edgy. As a great man once said, Luvvies? C***s innit.
1. The American system is what it is. Regardless of whether Trump didn't win the popular vote and how close it was in swing states, he won according to the system. So stop putting a caveat on it to imply in some way his victory is less legitimate.
It's a gerrymander - small, Republican states get way more electors per head of population. That's why he "won" in 2016, despite losing the nationwide vote, to HRC of all people!
Actually until the California results came in in 2016 Trump led the popular vote. Excluding California, Trump won the popular vote in 2016 as well as the EC
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.
What do you mean the "Muslim world"? Rushdie himself is a Muslim.
So what?
You're treating Muslims as if they all think alike.
No I am not
You are wrong anyway. Rushdie was born into a Muslim family, had informally apostasised at the relevant time and ostentatiously and ineffectively re embraced the faith after the fatwa was published. By the same token I am a Christian but seem to manage to offend many believers by stating the sufficiently obvious point that Christ was an active homosexual.
You certainly offend many with that, when Christ was most likely not sexual, he was focused on his preaching and message. However fortunately for you yes Justin Welby and Pope Francis are not going to impose a Fatwa on your head calling for you to be killed even if you offend them with such views!
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?
As you would still be allowing open door immigration, as per my earlier post, not the tighter controls needed
I did not comment on having open door immigration.
Your words were an option that 'you preserve a free, liberal society and tighten immigration controls to filter out extremists'.
My point was that tightening immigration will not capture all extremists since even if we had zero immigration there are extremists already here, who can be influenced, so even zero immigration would not solve the problem as you suggest it would.
Whether you tighten immigration or loosen it my point was the same, being free and liberal and also react to the extremists that are present, however many there are. You may feel tighter immigration will help with that, others may not agree, but that is a separate matter. Feel free to read my point in the context of also having tighter immigration controls.
Yes we have some already, more than we should because of the near open door immigration of the Blair years in particular
Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.
Twit. I can't believe that there are people too dim to understand the axeman point.
Twat. I can't believe that there are people too thick to understand that people are in control of their OWN actions.
OK
Answer the question.
Do you have any criticism at all of the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is? Any criticism at all?
If I were to pen a PB thread entitled "IshmaelZ is GAY!", would you have a right to chop my head off with an axe? Yes or no?
You are missing the point and losing the argument. To make your analogy relevant, if you knew that I was so unbalanced that I would respond by chopping someone's head off, and you could safely assume that it wouldn't be yours, and if in fact I went round and chopped my neighbour's head off, you would be partly to blame. Not as much as me but you would not be innocent.
Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.
Twit. I can't believe that there are people too dim to understand the axeman point.
Twat. I can't believe that there are people too thick to understand that people are in control of their OWN actions.
OK
Answer the question.
Do you have any criticism at all of the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is? Any criticism at all?
If I were to pen a PB thread entitled "IshmaelZ is GAY!", would you have a right to chop my head off with an axe? Yes or no?
You are missing the point and losing the argument. To make your analogy relevant, if you knew that I was so unbalanced that I would respond by chopping someone's head off, and you could safely assume that it wouldn't be yours, and if in fact I went round and chopped my neighbour's head off, you would be partly to blame. Not as much as me but you would not be innocent.
OK, let's make it relevant to today's events:
If Rushdie were to pen a novel entitled "The Satanic Verses", would a religious nutter have a right to chop his head off with an axe? Yes or no?
https://twitter.com/jkbjournalist/status/1558073160716746755 I wish I could say this was a "new" low for @FoxNews Truly incredible. They photo-shopped a government exhibit (photo of Maxwell & Epstein on a plane) with an obviously fake photo of Reinhart. Here's the REAL photo.
Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.
Twit. I can't believe that there are people too dim to understand the axeman point.
Twat. I can't believe that there are people too thick to understand that people are in control of their OWN actions.
OK
Answer the question.
Do you have any criticism at all of the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is? Any criticism at all?
If I were to pen a PB thread entitled "IshmaelZ is GAY!", would you have a right to chop my head off with an axe? Yes or no?
You are missing the point and losing the argument. To make your analogy relevant, if you knew that I was so unbalanced that I would respond by chopping someone's head off, and you could safely assume that it wouldn't be yours, and if in fact I went round and chopped my neighbour's head off, you would be partly to blame. Not as much as me but you would not be innocent.
OK, let's make it relevant to today's events:
If Rushdie were to pen a novel entitled "The Satanic Verses", would a religious nutter have a right to chop his head off with an axe? Yes or no?
No, but that is in no way relevant to the argument.
1. The American system is what it is. Regardless of whether Trump didn't win the popular vote and how close it was in swing states, he won according to the system. So stop putting a caveat on it to imply in some way his victory is less legitimate.
It's a gerrymander - small, Republican states get way more electors per head of population. That's why he "won" in 2016, despite losing the nationwide vote, to HRC of all people!
Actually until the California results came in in 2016 Trump led the popular vote. Excluding California, Trump won the popular vote in 2016 as well as the EC
Why would you exclude California ?
In part as it is the state most likely to leave the United States and is rich enough and big enough to be the most viable as an independent nation and also as the West coast is far more liberal than the rest of the USA, certainly outside of New York, New England, DC and Illinois
1. The American system is what it is. Regardless of whether Trump didn't win the popular vote and how close it was in swing states, he won according to the system. So stop putting a caveat on it to imply in some way his victory is less legitimate.
It's a gerrymander - small, Republican states get way more electors per head of population. That's why he "won" in 2016, despite losing the nationwide vote, to HRC of all people!
Actually until the California results came in in 2016 Trump led the popular vote. Excluding California, Trump won the popular vote in 2016 as well as the EC
Why would you exclude California ?
Maybe HYUFD was on the opposite end of my post election "Clinton to win the poplular vote" bets that salvaged most of my 2016 damage?
Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.
Twit. I can't believe that there are people too dim to understand the axeman point.
Twat. I can't believe that there are people too thick to understand that people are in control of their OWN actions.
OK
Answer the question.
Do you have any criticism at all of the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is? Any criticism at all?
If I were to pen a PB thread entitled "IshmaelZ is GAY!", would you have a right to chop my head off with an axe? Yes or no?
You are missing the point and losing the argument. To make your analogy relevant, if you knew that I was so unbalanced that I would respond by chopping someone's head off, and you could safely assume that it wouldn't be yours, and if in fact I went round and chopped my neighbour's head off, you would be partly to blame. Not as much as me but you would not be innocent.
OK, let's make it relevant to today's events:
If Rushdie were to pen a novel entitled "The Satanic Verses", would a religious nutter have a right to chop his head off with an axe? Yes or no?
No, but that is in no way relevant to the argument.
Entirely relevant to events in upstate New York today, I'm afraid.
1. The American system is what it is. Regardless of whether Trump didn't win the popular vote and how close it was in swing states, he won according to the system. So stop putting a caveat on it to imply in some way his victory is less legitimate.
It's a gerrymander - small, Republican states get way more electors per head of population. That's why he "won" in 2016, despite losing the nationwide vote, to HRC of all people!
Actually until the California results came in in 2016 Trump led the popular vote. Excluding California, Trump won the popular vote in 2016 as well as the EC
Why would you exclude California ?
In part as it is the state most likely to leave the United States and is rich enough and big enough to be the most viable as an independent nation and also as the West coast is far more liberal than the rest of the USA, certainly outside of New York, New England, DC and Illinois
1. The American system is what it is. Regardless of whether Trump didn't win the popular vote and how close it was in swing states, he won according to the system. So stop putting a caveat on it to imply in some way his victory is less legitimate.
It's a gerrymander - small, Republican states get way more electors per head of population. That's why he "won" in 2016, despite losing the nationwide vote, to HRC of all people!
Actually until the California results came in in 2016 Trump led the popular vote. Excluding California, Trump won the popular vote in 2016 as well as the EC
Why would you exclude California ?
In part as it is the state most likely to leave the United States and is rich enough and big enough to be the most viable as an independent nation and also as the West coast is far more liberal than the rest of the USA, certainly outside of New York, New England, DC and Illinois
So no reason whatsoever.
No a huge reason. If California left the US would be far more likely to regularly elect Trump like Presidents. As I said most of the rest of the US is significantly less liberal than California is
1. The American system is what it is. Regardless of whether Trump didn't win the popular vote and how close it was in swing states, he won according to the system. So stop putting a caveat on it to imply in some way his victory is less legitimate.
It's a gerrymander - small, Republican states get way more electors per head of population. That's why he "won" in 2016, despite losing the nationwide vote, to HRC of all people!
Actually until the California results came in in 2016 Trump led the popular vote. Excluding California, Trump won the popular vote in 2016 as well as the EC
Why would you exclude California ?
In part as it is the state most likely to leave the United States and is rich enough and big enough to be the most viable as an independent nation and also as the West coast is far more liberal than the rest of the USA, certainly outside of New York, New England, DC and Illinois
So no reason whatsoever.
No a huge reason. If California left the US would be far more likely to regularly elect Trump like Presidents. As I said most of the rest of the US is significantly less liberal than California is
When exactly are the Californians seceding? Any polling on the subject?
1. The American system is what it is. Regardless of whether Trump didn't win the popular vote and how close it was in swing states, he won according to the system. So stop putting a caveat on it to imply in some way his victory is less legitimate.
It's a gerrymander - small, Republican states get way more electors per head of population. That's why he "won" in 2016, despite losing the nationwide vote, to HRC of all people!
Actually until the California results came in in 2016 Trump led the popular vote. Excluding California, Trump won the popular vote in 2016 as well as the EC
Why would you exclude California ?
In part as it is the state most likely to leave the United States and is rich enough and big enough to be the most viable as an independent nation and also as the West coast is far more liberal than the rest of the USA, certainly outside of New York, New England, DC and Illinois
So no reason whatsoever.
No a huge reason. If California left the US would be far more likely to regularly elect Trump like Presidents. As I said most of the rest of the US is significantly less liberal than California is
When exactly are the Californians seceding? Any polling on the subject?
32% of Californians wanted independence and to secede from the USA in 2017, significantly higher than the 22% average for other states
Trump under investigation per search warrant for: 18 USC 2071 — Concealment, removal or mutilation 18 USC 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defence information 18 USC 1519 — Destruction, alteration or falsification of records in Federal investigations
Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.
Twit. I can't believe that there are people too dim to understand the axeman point.
Twat. I can't believe that there are people too thick to understand that people are in control of their OWN actions.
OK
Answer the question.
Do you have any criticism at all of the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is? Any criticism at all?
If I were to pen a PB thread entitled "IshmaelZ is GAY!", would you have a right to chop my head off with an axe? Yes or no?
You are missing the point and losing the argument. To make your analogy relevant, if you knew that I was so unbalanced that I would respond by chopping someone's head off, and you could safely assume that it wouldn't be yours, and if in fact I went round and chopped my neighbour's head off, you would be partly to blame. Not as much as me but you would not be innocent.
OK, let's make it relevant to today's events:
If Rushdie were to pen a novel entitled "The Satanic Verses", would a religious nutter have a right to chop his head off with an axe? Yes or no?
No, but that is in no way relevant to the argument.
Entirely relevant to events in upstate New York today, I'm afraid.
But irrelevant to the argument. We are getting somewhere.
Trump under investigation per search warrant for: 18 USC 2071 — Concealment, removal or mutilation 18 USC 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defence information 18 USC 1519 — Destruction, alteration or falsification of records in Federal investigations
For max excitement this is under the Espionage Act.
1. The American system is what it is. Regardless of whether Trump didn't win the popular vote and how close it was in swing states, he won according to the system. So stop putting a caveat on it to imply in some way his victory is less legitimate.
It's a gerrymander - small, Republican states get way more electors per head of population. That's why he "won" in 2016, despite losing the nationwide vote, to HRC of all people!
Actually until the California results came in in 2016 Trump led the popular vote. Excluding California, Trump won the popular vote in 2016 as well as the EC
You are a silly sausage. You have to count California because it is one of the 50 States of the Union. You are not Donald Trump, you cannot stop the count when it suits you.
What if Jeremy Corbyn had insisted on stopping the count with only the London seats in during the 2017 GE. Popular vote wins and seat wins for Corbyn in London make him PM in your book.
Trump under investigation per search warrant for: 18 USC 2071 — Concealment, removal or mutilation 18 USC 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defence information 18 USC 1519 — Destruction, alteration or falsification of records in Federal investigations
For max excitement this is under the Espionage Act.
I spy with my little eye, something beginning with - T.
Trump under investigation per search warrant for: 18 USC 2071 — Concealment, removal or mutilation 18 USC 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defence information 18 USC 1519 — Destruction, alteration or falsification of records in Federal investigations
For max excitement this is under the Espionage Act.
I spy with my little eye, something beginning with - T.
Trump under investigation per search warrant for: 18 USC 2071 — Concealment, removal or mutilation 18 USC 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defence information 18 USC 1519 — Destruction, alteration or falsification of records in Federal investigations
For max excitement this is under the Espionage Act.
I spy with my little eye, something beginning with - T.
Trump under investigation per search warrant for: 18 USC 2071 — Concealment, removal or mutilation 18 USC 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defence information 18 USC 1519 — Destruction, alteration or falsification of records in Federal investigations
For max excitement this is under the Espionage Act.
"The Espionage Act of 1917 prohibited obtaining information, recording pictures, or copying descriptions of any information relating to the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information may be used for the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation."
That's a high bar. Knowing him the intent would be solely "to the advantage of Donald J Trump."
Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.
Twit. I can't believe that there are people too dim to understand the axeman point.
Twat. I can't believe that there are people too thick to understand that people are in control of their OWN actions.
OK
Answer the question.
Do you have any criticism at all of the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is? Any criticism at all?
If I were to pen a PB thread entitled "IshmaelZ is GAY!", would you have a right to chop my head off with an axe? Yes or no?
You are missing the point and losing the argument. To make your analogy relevant, if you knew that I was so unbalanced that I would respond by chopping someone's head off, and you could safely assume that it wouldn't be yours, and if in fact I went round and chopped my neighbour's head off, you would be partly to blame. Not as much as me but you would not be innocent.
OK, let's make it relevant to today's events:
If Rushdie were to pen a novel entitled "The Satanic Verses", would a religious nutter have a right to chop his head off with an axe? Yes or no?
No, but that is in no way relevant to the argument.
Entirely relevant to events in upstate New York today, I'm afraid.
But irrelevant to the argument. We are getting somewhere.
If I tell a mad axeman where to find the wife that he wants to kill, I am abetting a crime.
If I say or publish something, which is entirely lawful, that someone else finds so offensive that they decide they wish to kill me over it, I'm not.
Trump under investigation per search warrant for: 18 USC 2071 — Concealment, removal or mutilation 18 USC 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defence information 18 USC 1519 — Destruction, alteration or falsification of records in Federal investigations
For max excitement this is under the Espionage Act.
I spy with my little eye, something beginning with - T.
Trump under investigation per search warrant for: 18 USC 2071 — Concealment, removal or mutilation 18 USC 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defence information 18 USC 1519 — Destruction, alteration or falsification of records in Federal investigations
For max excitement this is under the Espionage Act.
I spy with my little eye, something beginning with - T.
Shortly after 3 p.m. Eastern, the Justice Department notified the court that “counsel for former President Trump — M. Evan Corcoran, Esq., and James Trusty, Esq. — have informed the government that the former President does not object to the government motion to unseal” the search warrant and the inventory list.
Trump under investigation per search warrant for: 18 USC 2071 — Concealment, removal or mutilation 18 USC 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defence information 18 USC 1519 — Destruction, alteration or falsification of records in Federal investigations
For max excitement this is under the Espionage Act.
I spy with my little eye, something beginning with - T.
What is your reason for that?
Is it four letters and ends in WAT?
Treasonous Tw@t has more than four letters, surely ?
1. The American system is what it is. Regardless of whether Trump didn't win the popular vote and how close it was in swing states, he won according to the system. So stop putting a caveat on it to imply in some way his victory is less legitimate.
It's a gerrymander - small, Republican states get way more electors per head of population. That's why he "won" in 2016, despite losing the nationwide vote, to HRC of all people!
Actually until the California results came in in 2016 Trump led the popular vote. Excluding California, Trump won the popular vote in 2016 as well as the EC
You are a silly sausage. You have to count California because it is one of the 50 States of the Union. You are not Donald Trump, you cannot stop the count when it suits you.
What if Jeremy Corbyn had insisted on stopping the count with only the London seats in during the 2017 GE. Popular vote wins and seat wins for Corbyn in London make him PM in your book.
No, the same principle applies in fact to some degree.
Certainly England excluding London is strongly Tory.
Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.
Twit. I can't believe that there are people too dim to understand the axeman point.
Twat. I can't believe that there are people too thick to understand that people are in control of their OWN actions.
OK
Answer the question.
Do you have any criticism at all of the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is? Any criticism at all?
If I were to pen a PB thread entitled "IshmaelZ is GAY!", would you have a right to chop my head off with an axe? Yes or no?
You are missing the point and losing the argument. To make your analogy relevant, if you knew that I was so unbalanced that I would respond by chopping someone's head off, and you could safely assume that it wouldn't be yours, and if in fact I went round and chopped my neighbour's head off, you would be partly to blame. Not as much as me but you would not be innocent.
OK, let's make it relevant to today's events:
If Rushdie were to pen a novel entitled "The Satanic Verses", would a religious nutter have a right to chop his head off with an axe? Yes or no?
No, but that is in no way relevant to the argument.
Entirely relevant to events in upstate New York today, I'm afraid.
But irrelevant to the argument. We are getting somewhere.
If I tell a mad axeman where to find the wife that he wants to kill, I am abetting a crime.
If I say or publish something, which is entirely lawful, that someone else finds so offensive that they decide they wish to kill me over it, I'm not.
The difference is clear and obvious.
I can only see one poster losing the argument here. It isn't Sunil, or Sean F
Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.
Twit. I can't believe that there are people too dim to understand the axeman point.
Twat. I can't believe that there are people too thick to understand that people are in control of their OWN actions.
OK
Answer the question.
Do you have any criticism at all of the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is? Any criticism at all?
If I were to pen a PB thread entitled "IshmaelZ is GAY!", would you have a right to chop my head off with an axe? Yes or no?
You are missing the point and losing the argument. To make your analogy relevant, if you knew that I was so unbalanced that I would respond by chopping someone's head off, and you could safely assume that it wouldn't be yours, and if in fact I went round and chopped my neighbour's head off, you would be partly to blame. Not as much as me but you would not be innocent.
OK, let's make it relevant to today's events:
If Rushdie were to pen a novel entitled "The Satanic Verses", would a religious nutter have a right to chop his head off with an axe? Yes or no?
No, but that is in no way relevant to the argument.
Entirely relevant to events in upstate New York today, I'm afraid.
But irrelevant to the argument. We are getting somewhere.
If I tell a mad axeman where to find the wife that he wants to kill, I am abetting a crime.
If I say or publish something, which is entirely lawful, that someone else finds so offensive that they decide they wish to kill me over it, I'm not.
The difference is clear and obvious.
No it is not. FFS get the incredibly straightforward facts right: if you know that someone is going to find what you say offensive enough to kill someone other than you, you are procuring that person's death.
Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.
Twit. I can't believe that there are people too dim to understand the axeman point.
Twat. I can't believe that there are people too thick to understand that people are in control of their OWN actions.
OK
Answer the question.
Do you have any criticism at all of the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is? Any criticism at all?
If I were to pen a PB thread entitled "IshmaelZ is GAY!", would you have a right to chop my head off with an axe? Yes or no?
You are missing the point and losing the argument. To make your analogy relevant, if you knew that I was so unbalanced that I would respond by chopping someone's head off, and you could safely assume that it wouldn't be yours, and if in fact I went round and chopped my neighbour's head off, you would be partly to blame. Not as much as me but you would not be innocent.
OK, let's make it relevant to today's events:
If Rushdie were to pen a novel entitled "The Satanic Verses", would a religious nutter have a right to chop his head off with an axe? Yes or no?
No, but that is in no way relevant to the argument.
Entirely relevant to events in upstate New York today, I'm afraid.
But irrelevant to the argument. We are getting somewhere.
If I tell a mad axeman where to find the wife that he wants to kill, I am abetting a crime.
If I say or publish something, which is entirely lawful, that someone else finds so offensive that they decide they wish to kill me over it, I'm not.
The difference is clear and obvious.
Put like that and the charge of responsibility looks positively fatuous.
No a huge reason. If California left the US would be far more likely to regularly elect Trump like Presidents. As I said most of the rest of the US is significantly less liberal than California is
I'm sure you're right - I'd merely offer Trump got more votes in defeat in California (just over 6 million) than he got in winning either Florida or Texas.
Means nothing of course under the US system any more than winning most votes does under our system.. In February 1974, the Conservatives under Heath won more votes than Wilson's Labour but in terms of seats was behind 301-297 and lost the election.
Will be rather convenient for GOP and DEMS alike if he can't stand for POTUS again after this...
Be rather convenient for the whole planet to be honest.
Not really. The GOP will select someone with more extreme views who is highly likely to be more competent. Rather as we are going to get a less centrist Boris who'll actually put the necessary hours in.
1. The American system is what it is. Regardless of whether Trump didn't win the popular vote and how close it was in swing states, he won according to the system. So stop putting a caveat on it to imply in some way his victory is less legitimate.
It's a gerrymander - small, Republican states get way more electors per head of population. That's why he "won" in 2016, despite losing the nationwide vote, to HRC of all people!
Actually until the California results came in in 2016 Trump led the popular vote. Excluding California, Trump won the popular vote in 2016 as well as the EC
You are a silly sausage. You have to count California because it is one of the 50 States of the Union. You are not Donald Trump, you cannot stop the count when it suits you.
What if Jeremy Corbyn had insisted on stopping the count with only the London seats in during the 2017 GE. Popular vote wins and seat wins for Corbyn in London make him PM in your book.
No, the same principle applies in fact to some degree.
Certainly England excluding London is strongly Tory.
Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.
Twit. I can't believe that there are people too dim to understand the axeman point.
Twat. I can't believe that there are people too thick to understand that people are in control of their OWN actions.
OK
Answer the question.
Do you have any criticism at all of the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is? Any criticism at all?
If I were to pen a PB thread entitled "IshmaelZ is GAY!", would you have a right to chop my head off with an axe? Yes or no?
You are missing the point and losing the argument. To make your analogy relevant, if you knew that I was so unbalanced that I would respond by chopping someone's head off, and you could safely assume that it wouldn't be yours, and if in fact I went round and chopped my neighbour's head off, you would be partly to blame. Not as much as me but you would not be innocent.
OK, let's make it relevant to today's events:
If Rushdie were to pen a novel entitled "The Satanic Verses", would a religious nutter have a right to chop his head off with an axe? Yes or no?
No, but that is in no way relevant to the argument.
Entirely relevant to events in upstate New York today, I'm afraid.
But irrelevant to the argument. We are getting somewhere.
If I tell a mad axeman where to find the wife that he wants to kill, I am abetting a crime.
If I say or publish something, which is entirely lawful, that someone else finds so offensive that they decide they wish to kill me over it, I'm not.
The difference is clear and obvious.
I can only see one poster losing the argument here. It isn't Sunil, or Sean F
How bold and resolute of you to snipe from the sidelines rather than embarrassing yourself as badly as they have done. Respect.
Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.
Twit. I can't believe that there are people too dim to understand the axeman point.
Twat. I can't believe that there are people too thick to understand that people are in control of their OWN actions.
OK
Answer the question.
Do you have any criticism at all of the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is? Any criticism at all?
If I were to pen a PB thread entitled "IshmaelZ is GAY!", would you have a right to chop my head off with an axe? Yes or no?
You are missing the point and losing the argument. To make your analogy relevant, if you knew that I was so unbalanced that I would respond by chopping someone's head off, and you could safely assume that it wouldn't be yours, and if in fact I went round and chopped my neighbour's head off, you would be partly to blame. Not as much as me but you would not be innocent.
OK, let's make it relevant to today's events:
If Rushdie were to pen a novel entitled "The Satanic Verses", would a religious nutter have a right to chop his head off with an axe? Yes or no?
No, but that is in no way relevant to the argument.
Entirely relevant to events in upstate New York today, I'm afraid.
But irrelevant to the argument. We are getting somewhere.
If I tell a mad axeman where to find the wife that he wants to kill, I am abetting a crime.
If I say or publish something, which is entirely lawful, that someone else finds so offensive that they decide they wish to kill me over it, I'm not.
The difference is clear and obvious.
I can only see one poster losing the argument here. It isn't Sunil, or Sean F
How bold and resolute of you to snipe from the sidelines rather than embarrassing yourself as badly as they have done. Respect.
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.
I had to check which architect designed that, and it's a UK firm. Which makes your point.
Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.
Twit. I can't believe that there are people too dim to understand the axeman point.
Twat. I can't believe that there are people too thick to understand that people are in control of their OWN actions.
OK
Answer the question.
Do you have any criticism at all of the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is? Any criticism at all?
If I were to pen a PB thread entitled "IshmaelZ is GAY!", would you have a right to chop my head off with an axe? Yes or no?
You are missing the point and losing the argument. To make your analogy relevant, if you knew that I was so unbalanced that I would respond by chopping someone's head off, and you could safely assume that it wouldn't be yours, and if in fact I went round and chopped my neighbour's head off, you would be partly to blame. Not as much as me but you would not be innocent.
OK, let's make it relevant to today's events:
If Rushdie were to pen a novel entitled "The Satanic Verses", would a religious nutter have a right to chop his head off with an axe? Yes or no?
No, but that is in no way relevant to the argument.
Entirely relevant to events in upstate New York today, I'm afraid.
But irrelevant to the argument. We are getting somewhere.
If I tell a mad axeman where to find the wife that he wants to kill, I am abetting a crime.
If I say or publish something, which is entirely lawful, that someone else finds so offensive that they decide they wish to kill me over it, I'm not.
The difference is clear and obvious.
I can only see one poster losing the argument here. It isn't Sunil, or Sean F
How bold and resolute of you to snipe from the sidelines rather than embarrassing yourself as badly as they have done. Respect.
Will be rather convenient for GOP and DEMS alike if he can't stand for POTUS again after this...
There is NOTHING in US Constitution barring someone with a criminal conviction from running for & being elected as President. Does NOT require POTUS to be qualified as a voter; just need to be a natural born citizen at least 35 years old and a resident of US (not of any particular state) for at least 14 years.
Conviction for felony might NOT help Trump's 2024 prospects, but would bar neither his candidacy nor election.
Will be rather convenient for GOP and DEMS alike if he can't stand for POTUS again after this...
There is NOTHING in US Constitution barring someone with a criminal conviction from running for & being elected as President. Does NOT require POTUS to be qualified as a voter; just need to be a natural born citizen at least 35 years old and a resident of US (not of any particular state) for at least 14 years.
Conviction for felony might NOT help Trump's 2024 prospects, but would bar neither his candidacy nor election.
Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.
Twit. I can't believe that there are people too dim to understand the axeman point.
Twat. I can't believe that there are people too thick to understand that people are in control of their OWN actions.
OK
Answer the question.
Do you have any criticism at all of the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is? Any criticism at all?
If I were to pen a PB thread entitled "IshmaelZ is GAY!", would you have a right to chop my head off with an axe? Yes or no?
You are missing the point and losing the argument. To make your analogy relevant, if you knew that I was so unbalanced that I would respond by chopping someone's head off, and you could safely assume that it wouldn't be yours, and if in fact I went round and chopped my neighbour's head off, you would be partly to blame. Not as much as me but you would not be innocent.
OK, let's make it relevant to today's events:
If Rushdie were to pen a novel entitled "The Satanic Verses", would a religious nutter have a right to chop his head off with an axe? Yes or no?
No, but that is in no way relevant to the argument.
Entirely relevant to events in upstate New York today, I'm afraid.
But irrelevant to the argument. We are getting somewhere.
If I tell a mad axeman where to find the wife that he wants to kill, I am abetting a crime.
If I say or publish something, which is entirely lawful, that someone else finds so offensive that they decide they wish to kill me over it, I'm not.
The difference is clear and obvious.
No it is not. FFS get the incredibly straightforward facts right: if you know that someone is going to find what you say offensive enough to kill someone other than you, you are procuring that person's death.
So, if for example, a Muslim woman has an affair outside marriage, and she and offending man are put to death by their respective families, you would argue that they are in some measure, responsible for their own murders. After all, it is widely known that extra-marital sex is considered very offensive to some Muslims, so offensive that it must be punished by death.
Or if say, a woman were raped while wearing scanty clothing, you would be saying that she had in some way, brought that fate on herself.
Trump under investigation per search warrant for: 18 USC 2071 — Concealment, removal or mutilation 18 USC 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defence information 18 USC 1519 — Destruction, alteration or falsification of records in Federal investigations
For max excitement this is under the Espionage Act.
I spy with my little eye, something beginning with - T.
Will be rather convenient for GOP and DEMS alike if he can't stand for POTUS again after this...
There is NOTHING in US Constitution barring someone with a criminal conviction from running for & being elected as President. Does NOT require POTUS to be qualified as a voter; just need to be a natural born citizen at least 35 years old and a resident of US (not of any particular state) for at least 14 years.
Conviction for felony might NOT help Trump's 2024 prospects, but would bar neither his candidacy nor election.
Oh, so Mr Johnson would have to live there for 14 years? Didn't realise. Definitely better plan to see Ms Truss than Mr Trump out.
Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.
Twit. I can't believe that there are people too dim to understand the axeman point.
Twat. I can't believe that there are people too thick to understand that people are in control of their OWN actions.
OK
Answer the question.
Do you have any criticism at all of the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is? Any criticism at all?
If I were to pen a PB thread entitled "IshmaelZ is GAY!", would you have a right to chop my head off with an axe? Yes or no?
You are missing the point and losing the argument. To make your analogy relevant, if you knew that I was so unbalanced that I would respond by chopping someone's head off, and you could safely assume that it wouldn't be yours, and if in fact I went round and chopped my neighbour's head off, you would be partly to blame. Not as much as me but you would not be innocent.
OK, let's make it relevant to today's events:
If Rushdie were to pen a novel entitled "The Satanic Verses", would a religious nutter have a right to chop his head off with an axe? Yes or no?
No, but that is in no way relevant to the argument.
Entirely relevant to events in upstate New York today, I'm afraid.
But irrelevant to the argument. We are getting somewhere.
If I tell a mad axeman where to find the wife that he wants to kill, I am abetting a crime.
If I say or publish something, which is entirely lawful, that someone else finds so offensive that they decide they wish to kill me over it, I'm not.
The difference is clear and obvious.
I can only see one poster losing the argument here. It isn't Sunil, or Sean F
No, the same principle applies in fact to some degree.
Certainly England excluding London is strongly Tory.
I really think you're stretching it a bit with that comment - rural and suburban England is generally Conservative as is much of the north and east but urban England especially the larger towns and cities is overwhelmingly Labour.
Cities like Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, Newcastle and Liverpool have elected Conservative MPs in the past - do they any longer?
Comments
FWIW, I can see why West Germany had it originally but now it's become totally outdated. The chances of a new Adolf Hitler are gratefully close to zero.
I do think it's important to work with opponents when it's right. I also think it's important to recognise sometimes we are wrong and / or someone else might be right.
You are the one insisting a novelist is 'responsible' for deaths undertaken by crazy people on the spurious grounds that it was clear people would be offended. That is what I find baffling. People get offended all the time but don't become murderous (including most muslims on this very issue), so why you think that makes the offender responsible I cannot understand, and from rereading the posts you don't seem to have explained it either. Just that it would have been prudent not to do it, ergo he is responsible for an irrational response.
No no no no
No no no no
No no there’s no limits
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/12/liz-truss-boris-johnson-tory-leadership-frontrunner-workaholic
"Even those sympathetic to Truss expect a U-turn on those handouts, in a climate where focus group participants talk about moving their elderly parents in with them for the winter because it’s the only way everyone can afford to keep warm."
A few things.
1. The American system is what it is. Regardless of whether Trump didn't win the popular vote and how close it was in swing states, he won according to the system. So stop putting a caveat on it to imply in some way his victory is less legitimate.
2. The Russian angle is bollocks. Not only that, it also doesn't make sense. Russia intervened decisively enough in 2016 to swing it to Trump but, in 2020, and having got the President they elected, they then decided not to do anything and / or couldn't? How crap is that line of argument. Just accept Trump won in 2016 and he won without the conspiracy theory nonsense about Russians swinging the result.
https://twitter.com/talktv/status/1558042637067853835?s=21&t=kNXepj_4c9kvJtyudD4pjw
That is, of course, also the problem with the current incarnation of the GOP.
Brits say BAN THINGS!
Your words were an option that 'you preserve a free, liberal society and tighten immigration controls to filter out extremists'.
My point was that tightening immigration will not capture all extremists since even if we had zero immigration there are extremists already here, who can be influenced, so even zero immigration would not solve the problem as you suggest it would.
Whether you tighten immigration or loosen it my point was the same, being free and liberal and also react to the extremists that are present, however many there are. You may feel tighter immigration will help with that, others may not agree, but that is a separate matter. Feel free to read my point in the context of also having tighter immigration controls.
You are wrong anyway. Rushdie was born into a Muslim family, had informally apostasised at the relevant time and ostentatiously and ineffectively re embraced the faith after the fatwa was published. By the same token I am a Christian but seem to manage to offend many believers by stating the sufficiently obvious point that Christ was an active homosexual.
Some battles are important, others not.
So what if a theatre company puts on a play which twists history in a new and made-up, creative way? Shakespeare had no problem with this. There's a reason they are called 'plays'.
How many people will see this? A few thousand at most.
It is not the end of western civilization as we know it.
Whereas the article @Leon posted which seems to say medicine should be totally reinvented because it is racist to its very core is more of an issue.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence-labour-will-passionately-oppose-indyref2-says-sir-keir-starmer-3074857
Don’t like it, don’t watch it.
I’d rather they pushed boundaries than delivered uniformity.
Answer the question.
Do you have any criticism at all of the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is? Any criticism at all?
Am thinking about digging out a jumper.
Even if Trump had been successfully impeached, all it would have meant was Mike Pence becoming President.
As a great man once said, Luvvies? C***s innit.
If Rushdie were to pen a novel entitled "The Satanic Verses", would a religious nutter have a right to chop his head off with an axe? Yes or no?
https://twitter.com/jkbjournalist/status/1558073160716746755
I wish I could say this was a "new" low for @FoxNews Truly incredible. They photo-shopped a government exhibit (photo of Maxwell & Epstein on a plane) with an obviously fake photo of Reinhart. Here's the REAL photo.
Sorry, flashing back to 2016 again.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-california-secession-idUSKBN1572KB
18 USC 2071 — Concealment, removal or mutilation
18 USC 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defence information
18 USC 1519 — Destruction, alteration or falsification of records in Federal investigations
What if Jeremy Corbyn had insisted on stopping the count with only the London seats in during the 2017 GE. Popular vote wins and seat wins for Corbyn in London make him PM in your book.
Is it four letters and ends in WAT?
That's a high bar.
Knowing him the intent would be solely "to the advantage of Donald J Trump."
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/3598503-fbi-recovered-11-sets-of-classified-documents-in-trump-search-report/
If I say or publish something, which is entirely lawful, that someone else finds so offensive that they decide they wish to kill me over it, I'm not.
The difference is clear and obvious.
And Trump, of course.
NY Times
Certainly England excluding London is strongly Tory.
I can only see one poster losing the argument here. It isn't Sunil, or Sean F
https://news.sky.com/story/sir-salman-rushdie-satanic-verses-author-stabbed-in-the-neck-at-event-in-new-york-12671352
I wish I had your facility for concision.
Technically.
Means nothing of course under the US system any more than winning most votes does under our system.. In February 1974, the Conservatives under Heath won more votes than Wilson's Labour but in terms of seats was behind 301-297 and lost the election.
Rather as we are going to get a less centrist Boris who'll actually put the necessary hours in.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/08/12/john-solomon-and-kash-patel-may-be-implicated-in-the-trump-related-espionage-act-investigation/
That should cover it, Mr President.
Conviction for felony might NOT help Trump's 2024 prospects, but would bar neither his candidacy nor election.
Or if say, a woman were raped while wearing scanty clothing, you would be saying that she had in some way, brought that fate on herself.
How very seventh century.
Cities like Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, Newcastle and Liverpool have elected Conservative MPs in the past - do they any longer?