politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Those claiming that the “will of the people” equates to no dea

OblitusSumMe said:

148grss said:

SquareRoot said:

148grss said:

Sean_F said:

148grss said:

MattW said:

148grss said:

CD13 said:

Mr Bladder,

I don't bother arguing with anti-religious people. Some do like black and white, and seem to be experts on what I think. Pride is one of the great sins and we all still indulge in it. I'm Catholic but I'd be very happy with married priests and priestesses. Even a female Pope.

There's always a desire for perfection, but we aren't perfect. If we were, we wouldn't need help. This misplaced pride can often develop into arrogance. Atheists as well as theists. I'm not so arrogant that I can envisage science ever explaining everything. We have a better understanding than we used to have about 5% of the content of this universe, but it's baby steps and still subject to some ratification.

As for why, rather than how, you pays your money and ...

The thing is atheists don't claim to be perfect, whereas the Catholic Church, for a very long time, did and kinda still tries to.

I don't think it did, and I don't think it does. Care to explain?

And (writing as one with Protestant tendencies) that would be "Roman Catholic Church" !

The entire doctrine of Papal Infallibility and the Infallibility of the Church would suggest that the RCC has claimed divine perfection and, to a degree, still does.

As I understand it, the Pope is only infallible when he enunciates religious doctrine.

So in a specific time and place the pope can be perfect. So it believes in perfection, to a degree.

The Sunni and the Shia believe their doctrine is infallibly correct.. someone is telling porkies!

I mean, I think the essence of most religions is to claim some kind of infallibility; otherwise what's the point of a religion? "Yeah, there's a god, but I dunno what he wants, try your best" may be wise words, but no prophet has spoken them.

I think that's pretty close to the Quaker position.

Sean_F said:

Anorak said:

Sean_F said:

david_herdson said:

Sean_F said:

kinabalu said:

Anorak said:

I think taking this further would involve a lot of sticky ground around religion and ethnicity. You can be an atheist Jew, for example, but not an atheist Muslim.

You're on the money regarding the strains of Zionism, though, which is why I remain baffled why the hard left view it as such a pejorative term.

I think it's more the case that throughout history the powerful have exploited the weak. The powerful have mostly been men (but there have been powerful women) while the weak may be either sex.

To an extent, that's true - but there can surely be little doubt that most societies have given men substantially more rights than women, whether at the top of society or the bottom. Kings ruled countries as men ruled households.

There are pre-20th century (or arguably, pre-21st century) exceptions of rich and powerful women but these are notable in large part simply because they are rare - and even then, they almost universally gained their power because of who they married or who fathered them.

That said, it's also true that many of these women readily adopted the exploitative habits and abuses of men in similar positions. The question feminists would (rightly) ask is whether they did so out of necessity in order to fit into a male-defined culture, or whether such actions are innate instincts to humans of either gender in such positions?

The latter. The will to power is common to both sexes.

Disagree. To gain position, and retain it in a male dominated environment, one needed to conform.

Secondly, while doubtless there are venal, ambitious, and ruthless women as well as men, looking at the behaviour of only those who succeeded in a male world is an appalling sample bias.

Yes, but over the past 100 years, it's become increasingly common to encounter women in positions in power. I don't think there's much evidence that they behave very differently from men in positions of power. We've got a much bigger sample now.

Morris_Dancer said:

This chat reminds me of a silly Twitter incident a few years ago. It was International Women's Day and someone had put up Empress Irene as an example of a successful woman (citing the resolution of the iconoclasm). I, politely, pointed out she also had her own son blinded so brutally he ended up dying of his wounds and, perhaps, she wasn't an ideal poster girl for womanhood.

The tweet to which I replied was deleted. I was then blocked by the chap who put up a practically identical tweet claiming he'd deleted the first because of a grammatical error, or suchlike.

Discussions about things can get bogged down when people refuse to engage with varying viewpoints. But there we are.

Anorak said:

Sean_F said:

Anorak said:

Sean_F said:

david_herdson said:

Sean_F said:

kinabalu said:

Anorak said:

I think taking this further would involve a lot of sticky ground around religion and ethnicity. You can be an atheist Jew, for example, but not an atheist Muslim.

You're on the money regarding the strains of Zionism, though, which is why I remain baffled why the hard left view it as such a pejorative term.

I think it's more the case that throughout history the powerful have exploited the weak. The powerful have mostly been men (but there have been powerful women) while the weak may be either sex.

To an extent, that's true - but there can surely be little doubt that most societies have given men substantially more rights than women, whether at the top of society or the bottom. Kings ruled countries as men ruled households.

.

Disagree. To gain position, and retain it in a male dominated environment, one needed to conform.

Secondly, while doubtless there are venal, ambitious, and ruthless women as well as men, looking at the behaviour of only those who succeeded in a male world is an appalling sample bias.

Yes, but over the past 100 years, it's become increasingly common to encounter women in positions in power. I don't think there's much evidence that they behave very differently from men in positions of power. We've got a much bigger sample now.

Let's say 1 in 10 powerful people are women (an overestimate), and one in a hundred people is powerful*. That means that you're comparing the "top" 1% of men with the "top" 0.1% of women**. Not a fair comparison.

* utterly made up, and obviously a very broad definition of powerful that includes a boss at MacDonalds
** numbers are wrong, but right enough that you get my drift (I hope)

In a country like the UK, I'd say more than one in ten powerful people are women, although still a minority; at any rate if you define "powerful" to include senior managers, owners of businesses, MP's. And, no, I don't see much difference between men and women in positions of leadership and authority.

Powerful people are not representative of the population as a whole.

Sean_F said:

Yes.

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

From the polling this morning the 'will of the people' is to extend Article 50 by 3 months then vote for May's Deal with some guarantee on the backstop added on.


The Deal also ensures access to the single market, albeit not membership of it and restricts free movement to reduce immigration so best respects the views of Remain and Leave voters as given by the 2016 Comres poll

Have you a link to todays polling. I must have missed it. Thank you

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1100659208725385217?s=20

Thank you for that. Very interesting

Yes the voters are warming to May's Deal, they clearly do not want No Deal or a long extension of Article 50 and delay to Brexit either, so the Deal it will have to be

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

From the polling this morning the 'will of the people' is to extend Article 50 by 3 months then vote for May's Deal with some guarantee on the backstop added on.


The Deal also ensures access to the single market, albeit not membership of it and restricts free movement to reduce immigration so best respects the views of Remain and Leave voters as given by the 2016 Comres poll

Have you a link to todays polling. I must have missed it. Thank you

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1100659208725385217?s=20

Thank you for that. Very interesting

Yes the voters are warming to May's Deal, they clearly do not want No Deal or a long extension of Article 50 and delay to Brexit either, so the Deal it will have to be

Rubbish