Another small piece of evidence in favour of masks:
Just back from Morrisons. Very high mask usage with women in there. Almost all of them in fact. But not so the men. A really quite striking gender split. So yet another instance, to join so many others, of Viva La Femme!
And of course women much less likely to suffer badly from this.
Two observations probably linked.
Not sure in March and April many people of either gender were wearing masks.
This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
It really doesn't matter if they're green with purple polka dots. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
And if people are prepared to put their values above the law and face up to the law then good for them.
The law is not the be all and end all.
Unfortunately, you're far too stubborn and obstinate to see the sewer you've crawled into (even though you're intelligent enough to recognise some the points are valid, and secretly fear you might not have called this wholly right).
Once you adopt a position you refuse to move off it regardless of how the argument subsequently develops. That's a sign of weakness of character by the way, not strength.
I have lost respect for you.
My position is the same now as it always has been: People should do what they consider to be right.
Nothings changed. How is that a sewer? I fundamentally believe in individuals making their own free choices.
What if people have conflicting views of what is right? How should they be resolved?
Everyone should make their own decisions on what they think is right. You do what you consider is right, I do what I consider to be right.
The law is how we try to compel people to do what we want them to do, but if people really think the law is wrong and are prepared to face up to the consequences of breaking the law then so be it.
That's a completely insane view point.
People should be free to carry out extra judicial punishments of they feel the law is wrong?!
Once again I feel vindicated leaving the Tory party. It didn't feel right being in the same party as you and HYFUD. I hope @Casino_Royale and @DavidL are beginning to see the party is no longer for people like us.
Not a member. Never have been. Subcontracting the ability to think to a political party has rarely appealed (although I was an SDP founder member back in my youth).
I don't think that is a fair characterisation. With the odd exception, those PBers who are party members do not uncritically follow the party line. Joining a party gives you a chance to influence policy. Not that I'm expecting advocating the extinction of Humankind to be adopted as Labour policy any time soon, mind.
Smart politics from Starmer reaching across the tribal divide and no doubt upsetting a few on his left fringe. Talk of a boost for the Tories in the polls following the weekend is nonsense as law abiding voters will just as likely consider the weak response from supposed toughie Priti useless Patel and from dozy Boris, arriving as usual too late to the party on Sunday night, as wholly inadequate.
As opposed to Labour MPs like Whittome explicitly 'celebrating' the vandalism, eh? I'd much prefer Boris and Patel to send in the heavies, but it's not hard to see how that could backfire in this climate.
Nobody has ever heard of Whittome. Not even her constituents. How ever much you think it furthers your cause, her story is just lost in the haze.
I wonder why the media Blob won't say one word about a Labour MP celebrating illegal vandalism. Hmmm....
It's about time the public learned what these people really think, and what they would really do with power...
I wholly disagree that historical artefacts should be wantonly destroyed by criminals posing as freedom fighters.
The important response was the measured one from Starmer. Were Corbyn still in the driving seat we doubtless would have had some equivocal, rambling nonsense. He isn't thankfully.
The fact that the Labour leader is no longer an insane nutjob is indeed immensely refreshing. But a lot of the crazies are still sitting behind him - literally so in some cases.
America is not far gone enough to give him another term. It will be so so ugly, this election, but he cannot win.
Would you like to join me and @Alistair and @Stocky in the TrumpToast club?
We've been stuck on 3 for too long. Criteria for joining - supreme confidence that he loses in November and a strong hunch it will not even be close.
No. I don't want to jinx my Betfair book.
- I get you.
I've just closed mine out for quite a decent profit.
But before you shout at me, here's the thinking. My USP has now become not so much Trump will lose - since I sense this dawning on people and about to become a clear consensus - but that it will NOT be close.
So, I'm waiting for the spreads and hoping my expectation of a probable Dem landslide at that point is still niche.
Then I sell his EC quote - 245? - for an eye-watering unit stake.
Turnout is the big thing for me. Anyone anti-Trump will be voting this time. And some of Trump`s voters (who had never voted before) won`t bother this time. The result: a clear Dem win.
This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
It really doesn't matter if they're green with purple polka dots. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
And if people are prepared to put their values above the law and face up to the law then good for them.
The law is not the be all and end all.
Unfortunately, you're far too stubborn and obstinate to see the sewer you've crawled into (even though you're intelligent enough to recognise some the points are valid, and secretly fear you might not have called this wholly right).
Once you adopt a position you refuse to move off it regardless of how the argument subsequently develops. That's a sign of weakness of character by the way, not strength.
I have lost respect for you.
My position is the same now as it always has been: People should do what they consider to be right.
Nothings changed. How is that a sewer? I fundamentally believe in individuals making their own free choices.
What if people have conflicting views of what is right? How should they be resolved?
Everyone should make their own decisions on what they think is right. You do what you consider is right, I do what I consider to be right.
The law is how we try to compel people to do what we want them to do, but if people really think the law is wrong and are prepared to face up to the consequences of breaking the law then so be it.
That's a completely insane view point.
Its entirely sane and its a view we've had for hundreds of years.
There is a noble history for hundreds of years of law breakers achieving progress. And this country isn't nor hasn't been an authoritarian dictatorship were the law must be obeyed. Nor should it be. I wouldn't support that.
Some things are more important than the law.
You've really gone off into the deep end to support your idiotic stance on Cummings. It's sad how one bad decision has led you down such an odd path that now you're advocating breaking the law if you feel like it. I feel like having the latest TV but I don't want to pay for it, should I go and rob John Lewis tomorrow?
You think I support people taking responsibility for their own decision making because of Cummings? Not because that has always been my philosophy?
I chose Jack Sparrow as my avatar last year because people kept using the term Libertarian Pirate Island as an insult and I said that sounded great to me. Was that because of Cummings?
Perhaps my enjoyment of Atlas Shrugged in the 90s was because of Cummings?
"You're forgetting one thing, mate: I'm CAPTAIN Philip Thompson! Savvy?"
I'm on at 3 for the price of a pint. It was meant as a bit of a morale booster to feed my hope of the end of Trump rather than a prediction.
Trump is in serious trouble. He's down 20 points with evangelicals since March, and if they stay away, it will take a mathematical miracle to save him.
It's miserable when you have become utterly irrelevant.
Getting attacked by the loonies helps Starmer immensely. He has to marginalise the people who dragged the Labour party down, suspend anyone guilty of antisemitism and let the Kerry-Anne Mendozas slink back to the SWP or wherever it was they came from.
The Tories have largely learned the lesson that you steer well clear of the Tommy Robinsons of this world. Labour needs to learn the same lesson with the hard left. Starmer gives every indication that he gets it.
The Tories have some dim people on the back benches but I haven't noticed any Tommy Robinsons. Whereas Labour have quite a number of back benchers who are candidates for the left equivalent. SKS himself is clearly electable, but whether his party is so is a much trickier question.
Not a word to say about the tens of thousands of 'protesters' engaging in massive super-spreader events then, and cheered on by Labour MPs?
What a fucking surprise!
There have crowds in parks and beaches for at least a fortnight now. Lets not pretend this id the first time lockdown has been breached. It all went tits up after Cummings, same as the Tory poll leads.
God, she stuffed your lot up good and proper, didn't she? Decades and decades later and the left are still stewing in impotent rage about the Iron Lady
Then Blair "stuffed your lot up good and proper" in 3 successive elections, that's how it goes.
This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
It really doesn't matter if they're green with purple polka dots. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
And if people are prepared to put their values above the law and face up to the law then good for them.
The law is not the be all and end all.
Unfortunately, you're far too stubborn and obstinate to see the sewer you've crawled into (even though you're intelligent enough to recognise some the points are valid, and secretly fear you might not have called this wholly right).
Once you adopt a position you refuse to move off it regardless of how the argument subsequently develops. That's a sign of weakness of character by the way, not strength.
I have lost respect for you.
My position is the same now as it always has been: People should do what they consider to be right.
Nothings changed. How is that a sewer? I fundamentally believe in individuals making their own free choices.
What if people have conflicting views of what is right? How should they be resolved?
Everyone should make their own decisions on what they think is right. You do what you consider is right, I do what I consider to be right.
The law is how we try to compel people to do what we want them to do, but if people really think the law is wrong and are prepared to face up to the consequences of breaking the law then so be it.
You're okay with honour killings I take it. And terrorism.
No I'm not. They're hurting others, not non-violent protest against inanimate objects, if you don't see the difference then I'm not sure how I can explain it to you.
You'd be happy with a terrorist act though if, as the IRA used to do, a warning was issued and everyone was cleared out beforehand?
Not a big Nelson Mandela fan either, I take it?
I think the Mandela case is pretty clear cut: he was offering resistance to a hostile, occupying force in his own country.
At the time Young Conservatives liked to sport "Hang Nelson Mandela" badges so it clearly wasn't clear cut at the time, unless you are suggesting that they were simply far right racist loons.
Smart politics from Starmer reaching across the tribal divide and no doubt upsetting a few on his left fringe. Talk of a boost for the Tories in the polls following the weekend is nonsense as law abiding voters will just as likely consider the weak response from supposed toughie Priti useless Patel and from dozy Boris, arriving as usual too late to the party on Sunday night, as wholly inadequate.
As opposed to Labour MPs like Whittome explicitly 'celebrating' the vandalism, eh? I'd much prefer Boris and Patel to send in the heavies, but it's not hard to see how that could backfire in this climate.
Nobody has ever heard of Whittome. Not even her constituents. How ever much you think it furthers your cause, her story is just lost in the haze.
It won't go unoticed over the time though. The problem is so many of the 2019 intake were on the far left and when you have sub 200 MPs the whacky ones like Whittome, Sultana, Gardiner and Clive Lewis are going to get their fair share of airtime. It's a problem for Starmer in terms of convicing the public that Labour are a party for the average voter. He's wisely ditched them from his shad cab at least.
Clive Lewis doesn't strike me as 'whacky'. Has his moments, but mostly perfectly reasonable.
In 'Ed Miliband is a dangerous Marxist' world, pretty much everyone can be called far left and whacky. Mysteriously the current bunch of state interventionists governing(sic) us seem to get a free pass.
EdMill, who I'm sure is a nice guy, was dangerous because, as we saw, there was a nasty Corbyn lurking.
Starmer's Labour won't have the Corbyns eventually. They'll be more like what we think of as the LDs - just with a degree of coherence and competency that has somehow escaped the the yellow peril.
Perhaps...or perhaps this idea that 80% of cases arisen from 20% of infected individuals is accurate.
Not arguing masks a good idea, but also plenty of studies of cases that show extended close contact, even with no masks and people didn't catch it e.g. even the original super spreader, I seemed to remember only half the group got it, despite staying in the same chalet with the guy for a week. And he was one of these "super spreaders".
He was a super spreader not because "only half" contracted the disease, but that he did infect half of those present, which is a really high transmission rate.
There is a lot of randomness in spreading any disease. I remember once reading about the spread of HIV. A fairly common schenario is, where the partners of patients newly diagnosed with HIV were surprised to find out that they were HIV -ve, even though the patient was infected before the start of the current relationship. Then believing that they must be immune to HIV they carry on having sex without condoms, but are then "devastated" months later when they are then found to be HIV +ve.
I'm not sure that's as big a threat as they hope it is. If anything I'm sure ministers are relieved that they won't have to make that decision themselves and it gives them a great platform to invest in green technology and renewables.
I thought we had already ruled them out of involvement in HS2?
God, she stuffed your lot up good and proper, didn't she? Decades and decades later and the left are still stewing in impotent rage about the Iron Lady
Then Blair "stuffed your lot up good and proper" in 3 successive elections, that's how it goes.
Electorally, but not politically. Taxes were never lower nor capitalism ever more thriving than under good old Tone. Thatcher and Major broke Old Labour so hard that most of the Tory programme remained or was expanded even when the Tories themselves were out of power. They actually did 'win the argument' - that's what the Corbynites were so angry about.
Perhaps...or perhaps this idea that 80% of cases arisen from 20% of infected individuals is accurate.
Not arguing masks a good idea, but also plenty of studies of cases that show extended close contact, even with no masks and people didn't catch it e.g. even the original super spreader, I seemed to remember only half the group got it, despite staying in the same chalet with the guy for a week. And he was one of these "super spreaders".
He was a super spreader not because "only half" contracted the disease, but that he did infect half of those present, which is a really high transmission rate.
This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
It really doesn't matter if they're green with purple polka dots. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
And if people are prepared to put their values above the law and face up to the law then good for them.
The law is not the be all and end all.
Unfortunately, you're far too stubborn and obstinate to see the sewer you've crawled into (even though you're intelligent enough to recognise some the points are valid, and secretly fear you might not have called this wholly right).
Once you adopt a position you refuse to move off it regardless of how the argument subsequently develops. That's a sign of weakness of character by the way, not strength.
I have lost respect for you.
My position is the same now as it always has been: People should do what they consider to be right.
Nothings changed. How is that a sewer? I fundamentally believe in individuals making their own free choices.
What if people have conflicting views of what is right? How should they be resolved?
Everyone should make their own decisions on what they think is right. You do what you consider is right, I do what I consider to be right.
The law is how we try to compel people to do what we want them to do, but if people really think the law is wrong and are prepared to face up to the consequences of breaking the law then so be it.
That's a completely insane view point.
People should be free to carry out extra judicial punishments of they feel the law is wrong?!
Once again I feel vindicated leaving the Tory party. It didn't feel right being in the same party as you and HYFUD. I hope @Casino_Royale and @DavidL are beginning to see the party is no longer for people like us.
I don't normally agree with Philip - and I don't 100% agree with him here either - but I think he is just saying that where a person acts in a way that is unlawful but is iho morally correct he will be supportive of that person and the illegal act in question.
He is not saying the law should be set aside and the "culprit" not prosecuted. Since this would clearly be a recipe for anarchy.
Another small piece of evidence in favour of masks:
Just back from Morrisons. Very high mask usage with women in there. Almost all of them in fact. But not so the men. A really quite striking gender split. So yet another instance, to join so many others, of Viva La Femme!
And of course women much less likely to suffer badly from this.
Two observations probably linked.
Not sure in March and April many people of either gender were wearing masks.
It's a measure of risk averse behaviour in general. The number of men who don't wash their hands even after visiting the toilet remains a disgusting reminder of the general vileness and stupidity of the human male.
I'm not sure that's as big a threat as they hope it is. If anything I'm sure ministers are relieved that they won't have to make that decision themselves and it gives them a great platform to invest in green technology and renewables.
I thought we had already ruled them out of involvement in HS2?
I take it the PB racists who object to the toppling of Colston also objected to the toppling of Saddam or Lenin?
Who are the PB racists?
You for example?
*runs and hides*
Looks like I most definitely did use a question mark.
Now, if it appears I DIRECTLY accused you of being a racist, then I apologise for being somewhat in jest (you will note the "*runs and hides*"), but not making this clearer. For the record, bearing in mind we have met in person at a PB get together in London some years back, I do NOT think you are a racist.
This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
It really doesn't matter if they're green with purple polka dots. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
And if people are prepared to put their values above the law and face up to the law then good for them.
The law is not the be all and end all.
Unfortunately, you're far too stubborn and obstinate to see the sewer you've crawled into (even though you're intelligent enough to recognise some the points are valid, and secretly fear you might not have called this wholly right).
Once you adopt a position you refuse to move off it regardless of how the argument subsequently develops. That's a sign of weakness of character by the way, not strength.
I have lost respect for you.
My position is the same now as it always has been: People should do what they consider to be right.
Nothings changed. How is that a sewer? I fundamentally believe in individuals making their own free choices.
What if people have conflicting views of what is right? How should they be resolved?
Everyone should make their own decisions on what they think is right. You do what you consider is right, I do what I consider to be right.
The law is how we try to compel people to do what we want them to do, but if people really think the law is wrong and are prepared to face up to the consequences of breaking the law then so be it.
That's a completely insane view point.
People should be free to carry out extra judicial punishments of they feel the law is wrong?!
Once again I feel vindicated leaving the Tory party. It didn't feel right being in the same party as you and HYFUD. I hope @Casino_Royale and @DavidL are beginning to see the party is no longer for people like us.
I don't normally agree with Philip - and I don't 100% agree with him here either - but I think he is just saying that where a person acts in a way that is unlawful but is iho morally correct he will be supportive of that person and the illegal act in question.
He is not saying the law should be set aside and the "culprit" not prosecuted. Since this would clearly be a recipe for anarchy.
Have I got that right, Philip?
Similar to my decision-making process in seeing my dad during lockdown (I didn`t in the end, but resolved to if lockdown hadn`t been loosened when it was). Many did the same. Rational choice - risk the car journey, accept the £100 fine if procecuted for an unecessary journey.
This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
It really doesn't matter if they're green with purple polka dots. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
And if people are prepared to put their values above the law and face up to the law then good for them.
The law is not the be all and end all.
Unfortunately, you're far too stubborn and obstinate to see the sewer you've crawled into (even though you're intelligent enough to recognise some the points are valid, and secretly fear you might not have called this wholly right).
Once you adopt a position you refuse to move off it regardless of how the argument subsequently develops. That's a sign of weakness of character by the way, not strength.
I have lost respect for you.
My position is the same now as it always has been: People should do what they consider to be right.
Nothings changed. How is that a sewer? I fundamentally believe in individuals making their own free choices.
What if people have conflicting views of what is right? How should they be resolved?
Everyone should make their own decisions on what they think is right. You do what you consider is right, I do what I consider to be right.
The law is how we try to compel people to do what we want them to do, but if people really think the law is wrong and are prepared to face up to the consequences of breaking the law then so be it.
You're okay with honour killings I take it. And terrorism.
And you're ok with black people not being allowed to take the same public transport as white people?
Like bald men fighting over a comb , get a grip nobody has segregated transport in this country not now and certainly not for hundreds of years.
This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
It really doesn't matter if they're green with purple polka dots. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
And if people are prepared to put their values above the law and face up to the law then good for them.
The law is not the be all and end all.
Unfortunately, you're far too stubborn and obstinate to see the sewer you've crawled into (even though you're intelligent enough to recognise some the points are valid, and secretly fear you might not have called this wholly right).
Once you adopt a position you refuse to move off it regardless of how the argument subsequently develops. That's a sign of weakness of character by the way, not strength.
I have lost respect for you.
My position is the same now as it always has been: People should do what they consider to be right.
Nothings changed. How is that a sewer? I fundamentally believe in individuals making their own free choices.
What if people have conflicting views of what is right? How should they be resolved?
Everyone should make their own decisions on what they think is right. You do what you consider is right, I do what I consider to be right.
The law is how we try to compel people to do what we want them to do, but if people really think the law is wrong and are prepared to face up to the consequences of breaking the law then so be it.
That's a recipe for societal breakdown and anarchy.
NZ lifting all restrictions. Except air travel. Hmm.
Guernsey (zero cases 39 days) has also lifted most restrictions (with tough track & trace measures - all restaurant visitors are logged with contact details and those have to be available 24/7 so tracing can be started within an hour of a positive diagnosis) has also said arrival quarantine will be last thing to go.
This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
It really doesn't matter if they're green with purple polka dots. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
And if people are prepared to put their values above the law and face up to the law then good for them.
The law is not the be all and end all.
Unfortunately, you're far too stubborn and obstinate to see the sewer you've crawled into (even though you're intelligent enough to recognise some the points are valid, and secretly fear you might not have called this wholly right).
Once you adopt a position you refuse to move off it regardless of how the argument subsequently develops. That's a sign of weakness of character by the way, not strength.
I have lost respect for you.
My position is the same now as it always has been: People should do what they consider to be right.
Nothings changed. How is that a sewer? I fundamentally believe in individuals making their own free choices.
What if people have conflicting views of what is right? How should they be resolved?
Everyone should make their own decisions on what they think is right. You do what you consider is right, I do what I consider to be right.
The law is how we try to compel people to do what we want them to do, but if people really think the law is wrong and are prepared to face up to the consequences of breaking the law then so be it.
That's a completely insane view point.
People should be free to carry out extra judicial punishments of they feel the law is wrong?!
Once again I feel vindicated leaving the Tory party. It didn't feel right being in the same party as you and HYFUD. I hope @Casino_Royale and @DavidL are beginning to see the party is no longer for people like us.
I don't normally agree with Philip - and I don't 100% agree with him here either - but I think he is just saying that where a person acts in a way that is unlawful but is iho morally correct he will be supportive of that person and the illegal act in question.
He is not saying the law should be set aside and the "culprit" not prosecuted. Since this would clearly be a recipe for anarchy.
Have I got that right, Philip?
Basically. Not 100% but yes that's the essence of it.
Some people put the law above right or wrong and make following the law a right in itself. I view right or wrong as being more important than the law.
In Dungeons and Dragons there's a good way of defining this debate, there are two axes of Good, Neutral or Evil on the good or evil spectrum . . . and on law and order there is Chaotic, Neutral or Lawful. Leaving 9 different combinations you can end up with. You can be Lawful Evil or any other combination.
On that basis I would class my philosophy as Chaotic Good. The right thing to do matters more than the law. In Superhero lore the most famous distinction between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good is Superman (Lawful Good) versus Batman (Chaotic Good).
This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
It really doesn't matter if they're green with purple polka dots. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
And if people are prepared to put their values above the law and face up to the law then good for them.
The law is not the be all and end all.
Unfortunately, you're far too stubborn and obstinate to see the sewer you've crawled into (even though you're intelligent enough to recognise some the points are valid, and secretly fear you might not have called this wholly right).
Once you adopt a position you refuse to move off it regardless of how the argument subsequently develops. That's a sign of weakness of character by the way, not strength.
I have lost respect for you.
My position is the same now as it always has been: People should do what they consider to be right.
Nothings changed. How is that a sewer? I fundamentally believe in individuals making their own free choices.
What if people have conflicting views of what is right? How should they be resolved?
Everyone should make their own decisions on what they think is right. You do what you consider is right, I do what I consider to be right.
The law is how we try to compel people to do what we want them to do, but if people really think the law is wrong and are prepared to face up to the consequences of breaking the law then so be it.
You're okay with honour killings I take it. And terrorism.
And you're ok with black people not being allowed to take the same public transport as white people?
Like bald men fighting over a comb , get a grip nobody has segregated transport in this country not now and certainly not for hundreds of years.
The reaction of some people on this site to the extremely basic, common-sense proposition that "legal" is not synonymous with "moral" is pretty eye-opening.
Biden has the biggest, most durable lead of any presidential challenger ever. He's more personally popular than Trump. The wrong-track number is at -38. And there are only 20 weekends left before Election Day.
Slippery slope arguments are the preserve of those with no better argument to use.
If Rhodes should stay make the case for Rhodes. If Churchill should stay make the case for Churchill. If slavers should stay make the case for slavers.
This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
It really doesn't matter if they're green with purple polka dots. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
And if people are prepared to put their values above the law and face up to the law then good for them.
The law is not the be all and end all.
Unfortunately, you're far too stubborn and obstinate to see the sewer you've crawled into (even though you're intelligent enough to recognise some the points are valid, and secretly fear you might not have called this wholly right).
Once you adopt a position you refuse to move off it regardless of how the argument subsequently develops. That's a sign of weakness of character by the way, not strength.
I have lost respect for you.
My position is the same now as it always has been: People should do what they consider to be right.
Nothings changed. How is that a sewer? I fundamentally believe in individuals making their own free choices.
What if people have conflicting views of what is right? How should they be resolved?
Everyone should make their own decisions on what they think is right. You do what you consider is right, I do what I consider to be right.
The law is how we try to compel people to do what we want them to do, but if people really think the law is wrong and are prepared to face up to the consequences of breaking the law then so be it.
You're okay with honour killings I take it. And terrorism.
And you're ok with black people not being allowed to take the same public transport as white people?
Like bald men fighting over a comb , get a grip nobody has segregated transport in this country not now and certainly not for hundreds of years.
Interesting that the TGWU had a hand in that. One of the refrains - it's just the working man protecting his wage level - has been doing the rounds more recently in relation to Brexit.
Slippery slope arguments are the preserve of those with no better argument to use.
If Rhodes should stay make the case for Rhodes. If Churchill should stay make the case for Churchill. If slavers should stay make the case for slavers.
One is not the same as the other.
The case was made for Colston, yet the mob still tore it down anyway.
Slippery slope arguments are the preserve of those with no better argument to use.
If Rhodes should stay make the case for Rhodes. If Churchill should stay make the case for Churchill. If slavers should stay make the case for slavers.
One is not the same as the other.
Other way around. Those who are proposing the change need to make the case for it.
The reaction of some people on this site to the extremely basic, common-sense proposition that "legal" is not synonymous with "moral" is pretty eye-opening.
I take it the PB racists who object to the toppling of Colston also objected to the toppling of Saddam or Lenin?
Who are the PB racists?
You for example?
*runs and hides*
Looks like I most definitely did use a question mark.
Now, if it appears I DIRECTLY accused you of being a racist, then I apologise for being somewhat in jest (you will note the "*runs and hides*"), but not making this clearer. For the record, bearing in mind we have met in person at a PB get together in London some years back, I do NOT think you are a racist.
This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
It really doesn't matter if they're green with purple polka dots. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
"to the full extent of the law"
Is this rhetorical flourish or do you mean something specific by it?
I mean what I say by it. There is a range of actions the police could take, from nothing, through a caution, to being prosecuted for all criminal acts for which there is evidence. Sometimes, understandably, the police are leniant. In this case I think that would be a mistake.
OK thanks. Understood.
My view on "Statue" -
My visceral reaction to the event was to cheer. Took a look at the CV of the statueee and I find it hard to credit how anyone could think it an appropriate monument. Surprised and disappointed that something of that nature has survived in place this long.
However, I only support law breaking where the law being broken is imo a grossly bad law - and the law against vandalism of public property is not imo one such.
So I'm going with the old "do not condone but will not condemn" formulation.
The reaction of some people on this site to the extremely basic, common-sense proposition that "legal" is not synonymous with "moral" is pretty eye-opening.
Of course it isn't. Morality is variable. Some cultures believe it moral to kill criminals and chop their hands off. The law is the same for everyone, which is why we have rule of law in this country.
Slippery slope arguments are the preserve of those with no better argument to use.
If Rhodes should stay make the case for Rhodes. If Churchill should stay make the case for Churchill. If slavers should stay make the case for slavers.
One is not the same as the other.
The case was made for Colston, yet the mob still tore it down anyway.
Sometimes people have to stand up to the tyranny of the majority.
If the majority want Colston back they can put him back. Lets see if it happens.
The reaction of some people on this site to the extremely basic, common-sense proposition that "legal" is not synonymous with "moral" is pretty eye-opening.
Of course it isn't. Morality is variable. Some cultures believe it moral to kill criminals and chop their hands off. The law is the same for everyone, which is why we have rule of law in this country.
And the only way to change the rule of law is to change the law - ie democratically.
The reaction of some people on this site to the extremely basic, common-sense proposition that "legal" is not synonymous with "moral" is pretty eye-opening.
Indeed.
Have we reached the "She's a witch! Burn her!!!" stage yet?
The reaction of some people on this site to the extremely basic, common-sense proposition that "legal" is not synonymous with "moral" is pretty eye-opening.
Of course it isn't. Morality is variable. Some cultures believe it moral to kill criminals and chop their hands off. The law is the same for everyone, which is why we have rule of law in this country.
But the law is also the same for everyone in countries that kill criminals and chop their hands off.
The map at the bottom shows the compensation paid out to slave owners (Which took the treasury 182 years to repay it's own borrowing....). Good argument to see if some of this can be reclaimed frankly seeing as we're in straitened times and all.
The reaction of some people on this site to the extremely basic, common-sense proposition that "legal" is not synonymous with "moral" is pretty eye-opening.
Of course it isn't. Morality is variable. Some cultures believe it moral to kill criminals and chop their hands off. The law is the same for everyone, which is why we have rule of law in this country.
And the only way to change the rule of law is to change the law - ie democratically.
But non-violent breaches of the law very frequently can and have led to showing where the law is an ass and led to it being changed.
If we only ever waited until the law was changed then we'd be in a much worse situation.
Slippery slope arguments are the preserve of those with no better argument to use.
If Rhodes should stay make the case for Rhodes. If Churchill should stay make the case for Churchill. If slavers should stay make the case for slavers.
One is not the same as the other.
The case was made for Colston, yet the mob still tore it down anyway.
Sometimes people have to stand up to the tyranny of the majority.
If the majority want Colston back they can put him back. Lets see if it happens.
'Mob rule is good when the mob does something I want'
Biden has the biggest, most durable lead of any presidential challenger ever. He's more personally popular than Trump. The wrong-track number is at -38. And there are only 20 weekends left before Election Day.
Lets hope. In the closing stages of the campaign Trump will demand rifle-toting loons to defend the ballot boxes against liberals and the MSM. And having lost will tell them that they have just a few short weeks to stop their country taken away.
Lets be honest about this. If he loses, Trump isn't going to depart quietly. He'll try and provoke an armed insurrection against the Powers That Be.
I still think the result in November will likely be close (where close means increasing the losing candidate's vote share by 3 per cent in every state would result in them winning in the electoral college). But if it isn't close, it's only going to be not close in one direction.
A very big loss for Trump would of course be the best result.
The reaction of some people on this site to the extremely basic, common-sense proposition that "legal" is not synonymous with "moral" is pretty eye-opening.
Indeed.
For once I'm in total agreement with you. Sure, if people are willing to break the law (without hurting anyone) for their beliefs then they can be prosecuted. But the very fact that nobody believes that this statue is going to be put back up shows that it's good that it's gone.
If people managed to topple a statue of Churchill does anyone believe that it wouldn't be immediately restored?
Slippery slope arguments are the preserve of those with no better argument to use.
If Rhodes should stay make the case for Rhodes. If Churchill should stay make the case for Churchill. If slavers should stay make the case for slavers.
One is not the same as the other.
I'd view Rhodes as more of a grey hat than a black hat, and after all, the Rhodes scholarships do a lot of good. So, IMHO, his statute should stay.
Question - Is there a single British aristocratic family that wasn't tangentially involved in the slave trade ?
There isn’t a single British family that wasn’t at some point in some way involved in slavery.
How many of them have kept the profits from it to the present day is another question.
One of the striking things from the BBC programme Who do you think you are ? was just how widespread slavery was. Many of the black celebs expecting to find their ancestors as liberated slaves were shocked when it turned out they were slave owners instead.
Slippery slope arguments are the preserve of those with no better argument to use.
If Rhodes should stay make the case for Rhodes. If Churchill should stay make the case for Churchill. If slavers should stay make the case for slavers.
One is not the same as the other.
The case was made for Colston, yet the mob still tore it down anyway.
Sometimes people have to stand up to the tyranny of the majority.
If the majority want Colston back they can put him back. Lets see if it happens.
'Mob rule is good when the mob does something I want'
Mob rule is neither good nor bad.
People should do what they think is right, people should vote based upon what they think is right. The law should be enforced within reason but if someone is willing to risk facing the consequences of the law that's their choice.
Do you want to live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed, no exceptions?
Bristol police say there will be no further action after protesters explain they were unsure whether they were strong enough to pull down statues and were simply testing whether they were fit to do so.
Comments
I'm on at 3 for the price of a pint. It was meant as a bit of a morale booster to feed my hope of the end of Trump rather than a prediction.
You would have better T from the Boston Tea Party by fishing it back out, and adding milk still in the cow.
Starmer's Labour won't have the Corbyns eventually. They'll be more like what we think of as the LDs - just with a degree of coherence and competency that has somehow escaped the the yellow peril.
Ah, my coat...
There is a lot of randomness in spreading any disease. I remember once reading about the spread of HIV. A fairly common schenario is, where the partners of patients newly diagnosed with HIV were surprised to find out that they were HIV -ve, even though the patient was infected before the start of the current relationship. Then believing that they must be immune to HIV they carry on having sex without condoms, but are then "devastated" months later when they are then found to be HIV +ve.
He is not saying the law should be set aside and the "culprit" not prosecuted. Since this would clearly be a recipe for anarchy.
Have I got that right, Philip?
A list is here:
https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/hs2/hs2-civils-works-approved-to-start-15-04-2020/
Here is the exchange last night: Looks like I most definitely did use a question mark.
Now, if it appears I DIRECTLY accused you of being a racist, then I apologise for being somewhat in jest (you will note the "*runs and hides*"), but not making this clearer. For the record, bearing in mind we have met in person at a PB get together in London some years back, I do NOT think you are a racist.
But presumably the pres and VP noms can;t be the same person(!) so I don't know what would happen if Biden were voted for as both.
https://twitter.com/bazilmajeed/status/1269936748664164353?s=20
Some people put the law above right or wrong and make following the law a right in itself. I view right or wrong as being more important than the law.
In Dungeons and Dragons there's a good way of defining this debate, there are two axes of Good, Neutral or Evil on the good or evil spectrum . . . and on law and order there is Chaotic, Neutral or Lawful. Leaving 9 different combinations you can end up with. You can be Lawful Evil or any other combination.
On that basis I would class my philosophy as Chaotic Good. The right thing to do matters more than the law. In Superhero lore the most famous distinction between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good is Superman (Lawful Good) versus Batman (Chaotic Good).
https://www.deviantart.com/spider-bat700/art/Nolanverse-Alignment-Chart-737635019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Bus_Boycott
https://twitter.com/WalkerBragman/status/1089831581030797312?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1089831581030797312|twgr^&ref_url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/31/kamala-harris-laughed-jailing-parents-truancy
Biden has the biggest, most durable lead of any presidential challenger ever. He's more personally popular than Trump. The wrong-track number is at -38. And there are only 20 weekends left before Election Day.
https://thebulwark.com/the-2020-cake-is-almost-baked/
If only there was one Hancock could count that as at least 10
If Rhodes should stay make the case for Rhodes.
If Churchill should stay make the case for Churchill.
If slavers should stay make the case for slavers.
One is not the same as the other.
Why are you counting your Jedi friends?
How many of them have kept the profits from it to the present day is another question.
My view on "Statue" -
My visceral reaction to the event was to cheer. Took a look at the CV of the statueee and I find it hard to credit how anyone could think it an appropriate monument. Surprised and disappointed that something of that nature has survived in place this long.
However, I only support law breaking where the law being broken is imo a grossly bad law - and the law against vandalism of public property is not imo one such.
So I'm going with the old "do not condone but will not condemn" formulation.
Great to see, though. Great to see.
If the majority want Colston back they can put him back. Lets see if it happens.
So I don't quite see your point here.
The map at the bottom shows the compensation paid out to slave owners (Which took the treasury 182 years to repay it's own borrowing....). Good argument to see if some of this can be reclaimed frankly seeing as we're in straitened times and all.
If we only ever waited until the law was changed then we'd be in a much worse situation.
Lets be honest about this. If he loses, Trump isn't going to depart quietly. He'll try and provoke an armed insurrection against the Powers That Be.
I still think the result in November will likely be close (where close means increasing the losing candidate's vote share by 3 per cent in every state would result in them winning in the electoral college). But if it isn't close, it's only going to be not close in one direction.
A very big loss for Trump would of course be the best result. For once I'm in total agreement with you. Sure, if people are willing to break the law (without hurting anyone) for their beliefs then they can be prosecuted. But the very fact that nobody believes that this statue is going to be put back up shows that it's good that it's gone.
If people managed to topple a statue of Churchill does anyone believe that it wouldn't be immediately restored?
People should do what they think is right, people should vote based upon what they think is right. The law should be enforced within reason but if someone is willing to risk facing the consequences of the law that's their choice.
Do you want to live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed, no exceptions?