Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
That is a ridiculous comment. You do not have to be a member of a group to be able to observe and understand organisations that might be detrimental to their cause. Indeed it is often the case that those most closely/directly involved are the very people who are unable to judge what might be doing them good or harm within wider society.
An obvious example. Trump and his message are very bad for the lower middle classes of the USA - the very people he claims to be representing. And yet, whilst most external observers can see he is just using them and is very bad for their cause, that section of US society is the one most likely to support him because they believe he is acting in their best interests.
Yes but. An outsider telling them that has limited utility.
The alternative being to let them continue to be used and misled by organsations that are actively damaging their cause?
Of course I am not the one who should be doing the telling. But the question posed by Fairliered was whether or not there are organisations that can do this and would be taken seriously?
But you and Fairliered are the ones asserting it is damaging their cause. And "used and misled" is quite emotive language, implying it is deliberate on some level. Misguided may be better. I say it is for trans people to decide that.
And as in the example I have given you would be completely wrong. Indeed it is often the people who are being most used and hurt who are unable (or unwilling) to see it.
This is not, as you seek to claim, to say that we are saying that they are stupid or thick. This is a normal human condition and we see it all over the world and all the way down through history from otherwise highly intelligent people. None of us are immune from it. But it doesn't make it any less real.
Which may be true. We can all be wrong. Are you 100% convinced you are right? Or is it multi millions of funding from the Evangelical Right in the USA that has made a relatively innocuous niche issue so very controversial?
I know this is probably a stupid post but I'll try it anyway and see whether any replies ripping it to shreds instantly prove to me beyond reasonable doubt *why* it is stupid.
If (hypothetically) you change most gender-based rights to become entirely sex-based rights instead, but simultaneously make gender recognition/change easier, can you protect biological women's rights whilst also allowing for what seems like entirely reasonable potential for people to choose the gender that best fits them?
e.g. evil trans rapist still has to go to men's prison because sex = male even if self-identifying as female whilst at the same time we are not stopping people who reasonably wish to identify as their preferred gender from quietly living out the lives they are entitled to?
Given that most trans people aren't rapists, it seems reasonable to say we need to find some middle path that clearly protects biological women without demonising everyone who wants to identify differently, regardless of exactly how far they take that transition.
The argument is that in insisting they go to a male prison you are treating them as different to other women so you are not respecting their choice
Regardless of their gender and sex, there is a duty of care both to the prisoner and to other inmates to prevent interpersonal violence. They should be on a separate unit whichever prison.
Well quite. This may be a weird question, but what do they do with a non-trans woman who rapes another woman and is sent to jail?
(And FFS Moonrabit )
On a point of pedantry, a biological woman cannot commit rape as it is defined in English law.
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
You are quite right. Also, as a goy, I am strictly neutral as to whether the shoah was inimical to jews. Who am I to judge?
Non sequitur alert. And. To my mind, an extremely offensive one.
No, it makes perfect and very obvious sense. It offends you only because of the accuracy with which it skewers you.
I know this is probably a stupid post but I'll try it anyway and see whether any replies ripping it to shreds instantly prove to me beyond reasonable doubt *why* it is stupid.
If (hypothetically) you change most gender-based rights to become entirely sex-based rights instead, but simultaneously make gender recognition/change easier, can you protect biological women's rights whilst also allowing for what seems like entirely reasonable potential for people to choose the gender that best fits them?
e.g. evil trans rapist still has to go to men's prison because sex = male even if self-identifying as female whilst at the same time we are not stopping people who reasonably wish to identify as their preferred gender from quietly living out the lives they are entitled to?
Given that most trans people aren't rapists, it seems reasonable to say we need to find some middle path that clearly protects biological women without demonising everyone who wants to identify differently, regardless of exactly how far they take that transition.
The argument is that in insisting they go to a male prison you are treating them as different to other women so you are not respecting their choice
Regardless of their gender and sex, there is a duty of care both to the prisoner and to other inmates to prevent interpersonal violence. They should be on a separate unit whichever prison.
Well quite. This may be a weird question, but what do they do with a non-trans woman who rapes another woman and is sent to jail?
(And FFS Moonrabit )
On a point of pedantry, a biological woman cannot commit rape as it is defined in English law.
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
That is a ridiculous comment. You do not have to be a member of a group to be able to observe and understand organisations that might be detrimental to their cause. Indeed it is often the case that those most closely/directly involved are the very people who are unable to judge what might be doing them good or harm within wider society.
An obvious example. Trump and his message are very bad for the lower middle classes of the USA - the very people he claims to be representing. And yet, whilst most external observers can see he is just using them and is very bad for their cause, that section of US society is the one most likely to support him because they believe he is acting in their best interests.
Yes but. An outsider telling them that has limited utility.
The alternative being to let them continue to be used and misled by organsations that are actively damaging their cause?
Of course I am not the one who should be doing the telling. But the question posed by Fairliered was whether or not there are organisations that can do this and would be taken seriously?
But you and Fairliered are the ones asserting it is damaging their cause. And "used and misled" is quite emotive language, implying it is deliberate on some level. Misguided may be better. I say it is for trans people to decide that.
And as in the example I have given you would be completely wrong. Indeed it is often the people who are being most used and hurt who are unable (or unwilling) to see it.
This is not, as you seek to claim, to say that we are saying that they are stupid or thick. This is a normal human condition and we see it all over the world and all the way down through history from otherwise highly intelligent people. None of us are immune from it. But it doesn't make it any less real.
Which may be true. We can all be wrong. Are you 100% convinced you are right? Or is it multi millions of funding from the Evangelical Right in the USA that has made a relatively innocuous niche issue so very controversial?
Um. No. Massive straw man from you there. It is controversial because it has real world effects on other people. The whole debate is about whether it is right to sacrifice one set of rights (those of straight and gay women) for the sake of another set of rights (those of Transgender women).
There must be a compromise available but organisations like Stonewall and Mermaids are unwilling to even discuss it and simply insist that their view and their way is the only one. They are as much fundamentalists in their own way as the idiots who simply oppose anything to do with transgender rights.
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
That is a ridiculous comment. You do not have to be a member of a group to be able to observe and understand organisations that might be detrimental to their cause. Indeed it is often the case that those most closely/directly involved are the very people who are unable to judge what might be doing them good or harm within wider society.
An obvious example. Trump and his message are very bad for the lower middle classes of the USA - the very people he claims to be representing. And yet, whilst most external observers can see he is just using them and is very bad for their cause, that section of US society is the one most likely to support him because they believe he is acting in their best interests.
Yes but. An outsider telling them that has limited utility.
The alternative being to let them continue to be used and misled by organsations that are actively damaging their cause?
Of course I am not the one who should be doing the telling. But the question posed by Fairliered was whether or not there are organisations that can do this and would be taken seriously?
But you and Fairliered are the ones asserting it is damaging their cause. And "used and misled" is quite emotive language, implying it is deliberate on some level. Misguided may be better. I say it is for trans people to decide that.
And as in the example I have given you would be completely wrong. Indeed it is often the people who are being most used and hurt who are unable (or unwilling) to see it.
This is not, as you seek to claim, to say that we are saying that they are stupid or thick. This is a normal human condition and we see it all over the world and all the way down through history from otherwise highly intelligent people. None of us are immune from it. But it doesn't make it any less real.
Which may be true. We can all be wrong. Are you 100% convinced you are right? Or is it multi millions of funding from the Evangelical Right in the USA that has made a relatively innocuous niche issue so very controversial?
Um. No. Massive straw man from you there. It is controversial because it has real world effects on other people. The whole debate is about whether it is right to sacrifice one set of rights (those of straight and gay women) for the sake of another set of rights (those of Transgender women).
There must be a compromise available but organisations like Stonewall and Mermaids are unwilling to even discuss it and simply insist that their view and their way is the only one. They are as much fundamentalists in their own way as the idiots who simply oppose anything to do with transgender rights.
Organisations like BLM, Stonewall and Mermaids need to be put out to grass.
I know this is probably a stupid post but I'll try it anyway and see whether any replies ripping it to shreds instantly prove to me beyond reasonable doubt *why* it is stupid.
If (hypothetically) you change most gender-based rights to become entirely sex-based rights instead, but simultaneously make gender recognition/change easier, can you protect biological women's rights whilst also allowing for what seems like entirely reasonable potential for people to choose the gender that best fits them?
e.g. evil trans rapist still has to go to men's prison because sex = male even if self-identifying as female whilst at the same time we are not stopping people who reasonably wish to identify as their preferred gender from quietly living out the lives they are entitled to?
Given that most trans people aren't rapists, it seems reasonable to say we need to find some middle path that clearly protects biological women without demonising everyone who wants to identify differently, regardless of exactly how far they take that transition.
The argument is that in insisting they go to a male prison you are treating them as different to other women so you are not respecting their choice
Regardless of their gender and sex, there is a duty of care both to the prisoner and to other inmates to prevent interpersonal violence. They should be on a separate unit whichever prison.
Well quite. This may be a weird question, but what do they do with a non-trans woman who rapes another woman and is sent to jail?
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
You are quite right. Also, as a goy, I am strictly neutral as to whether the shoah was inimical to jews. Who am I to judge?
Non sequitur alert. And. To my mind, an extremely offensive one.
No, it makes perfect and very obvious sense. It offends you only because of the accuracy with which it skewers you.
It really doesn't.
You just aren't very good at this, are you?
I am left handed. Let's hypothesise an organisation which said that all left handers ahould be burned at the stake. Let's hypothesise another organisation which said: Left handers are absolutely united in saying that right handers should be burned at the stake.
4 questions
is organisation 1 inimical to left handers is organisation 2 inimical to left handers can question 1 only be answered by left handers can question 2 only be answered by left handers
Take your time, and don't trouble to publish your answers because 1. I am going to bed and 2. your conclusion that 2+2 = 5, or 3, is not going to alter my world picture.
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
That is a ridiculous comment. You do not have to be a member of a group to be able to observe and understand organisations that might be detrimental to their cause. Indeed it is often the case that those most closely/directly involved are the very people who are unable to judge what might be doing them good or harm within wider society.
An obvious example. Trump and his message are very bad for the lower middle classes of the USA - the very people he claims to be representing. And yet, whilst most external observers can see he is just using them and is very bad for their cause, that section of US society is the one most likely to support him because they believe he is acting in their best interests.
Yes but. An outsider telling them that has limited utility.
The alternative being to let them continue to be used and misled by organsations that are actively damaging their cause?
Of course I am not the one who should be doing the telling. But the question posed by Fairliered was whether or not there are organisations that can do this and would be taken seriously?
But you and Fairliered are the ones asserting it is damaging their cause. And "used and misled" is quite emotive language, implying it is deliberate on some level. Misguided may be better. I say it is for trans people to decide that.
And as in the example I have given you would be completely wrong. Indeed it is often the people who are being most used and hurt who are unable (or unwilling) to see it.
This is not, as you seek to claim, to say that we are saying that they are stupid or thick. This is a normal human condition and we see it all over the world and all the way down through history from otherwise highly intelligent people. None of us are immune from it. But it doesn't make it any less real.
Which may be true. We can all be wrong. Are you 100% convinced you are right? Or is it multi millions of funding from the Evangelical Right in the USA that has made a relatively innocuous niche issue so very controversial?
Um. No. Massive straw man from you there. It is controversial because it has real world effects on other people. The whole debate is about whether it is right to sacrifice one set of rights (those of straight and gay women) for the sake of another set of rights (those of Transgender women).
There must be a compromise available but organisations like Stonewall and Mermaids are unwilling to even discuss it and simply insist that their view and their way is the only one. They are as much fundamentalists in their own way as the idiots who simply oppose anything to do with transgender rights.
I very much agree with that. I don't think the money is a straw man though. Stonewall and Mermaids were about their business for years without controversy. You are a poster I respect. I suspect we aren't going to agree here at all. So I'm going to tap out for fear of boring everyone else.
Interesting to see strong and visceral support for the Rwanda policy today from that noted fire-breathing foam-flecked right-winger.. Ken Clarke.
Sadly on this he is wrong. The policy - at least as it stands - is disgusting. In particular for me the idea that even if you are successful in your claim for asylum you are not allowed back into Britain but have to stay in Rwanda. That is simply inhuman.
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
That is a ridiculous comment. You do not have to be a member of a group to be able to observe and understand organisations that might be detrimental to their cause. Indeed it is often the case that those most closely/directly involved are the very people who are unable to judge what might be doing them good or harm within wider society.
An obvious example. Trump and his message are very bad for the lower middle classes of the USA - the very people he claims to be representing. And yet, whilst most external observers can see he is just using them and is very bad for their cause, that section of US society is the one most likely to support him because they believe he is acting in their best interests.
Yes but. An outsider telling them that has limited utility.
The alternative being to let them continue to be used and misled by organsations that are actively damaging their cause?
Of course I am not the one who should be doing the telling. But the question posed by Fairliered was whether or not there are organisations that can do this and would be taken seriously?
But you and Fairliered are the ones asserting it is damaging their cause. And "used and misled" is quite emotive language, implying it is deliberate on some level. Misguided may be better. I say it is for trans people to decide that.
And as in the example I have given you would be completely wrong. Indeed it is often the people who are being most used and hurt who are unable (or unwilling) to see it.
This is not, as you seek to claim, to say that we are saying that they are stupid or thick. This is a normal human condition and we see it all over the world and all the way down through history from otherwise highly intelligent people. None of us are immune from it. But it doesn't make it any less real.
Which may be true. We can all be wrong. Are you 100% convinced you are right? Or is it multi millions of funding from the Evangelical Right in the USA that has made a relatively innocuous niche issue so very controversial?
Um. No. Massive straw man from you there. It is controversial because it has real world effects on other people. The whole debate is about whether it is right to sacrifice one set of rights (those of straight and gay women) for the sake of another set of rights (those of Transgender women).
There must be a compromise available but organisations like Stonewall and Mermaids are unwilling to even discuss it and simply insist that their view and their way is the only one. They are as much fundamentalists in their own way as the idiots who simply oppose anything to do with transgender rights.
I very much agree with that. I don't think the money is a straw man though. You are a poster I respect. I suspect we aren't going to agree here at all. So I'm going to tap out for fear of boring everyone else.
"because I am so wrong that even I understand that I am wrong."
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
That is a ridiculous comment. You do not have to be a member of a group to be able to observe and understand organisations that might be detrimental to their cause. Indeed it is often the case that those most closely/directly involved are the very people who are unable to judge what might be doing them good or harm within wider society.
An obvious example. Trump and his message are very bad for the lower middle classes of the USA - the very people he claims to be representing. And yet, whilst most external observers can see he is just using them and is very bad for their cause, that section of US society is the one most likely to support him because they believe he is acting in their best interests.
Yes but. An outsider telling them that has limited utility.
The alternative being to let them continue to be used and misled by organsations that are actively damaging their cause?
Of course I am not the one who should be doing the telling. But the question posed by Fairliered was whether or not there are organisations that can do this and would be taken seriously?
But you and Fairliered are the ones asserting it is damaging their cause. And "used and misled" is quite emotive language, implying it is deliberate on some level. Misguided may be better. I say it is for trans people to decide that.
And as in the example I have given you would be completely wrong. Indeed it is often the people who are being most used and hurt who are unable (or unwilling) to see it.
This is not, as you seek to claim, to say that we are saying that they are stupid or thick. This is a normal human condition and we see it all over the world and all the way down through history from otherwise highly intelligent people. None of us are immune from it. But it doesn't make it any less real.
Which may be true. We can all be wrong. Are you 100% convinced you are right? Or is it multi millions of funding from the Evangelical Right in the USA that has made a relatively innocuous niche issue so very controversial?
Um. No. Massive straw man from you there. It is controversial because it has real world effects on other people. The whole debate is about whether it is right to sacrifice one set of rights (those of straight and gay women) for the sake of another set of rights (those of Transgender women).
There must be a compromise available but organisations like Stonewall and Mermaids are unwilling to even discuss it and simply insist that their view and their way is the only one. They are as much fundamentalists in their own way as the idiots who simply oppose anything to do with transgender rights.
I very much agree with that. I don't think the money is a straw man though. Stonewall and Mermaids were about their business for years without controversy. You are a poster I respect. I suspect we aren't going to agree here at all. So I'm going to tap out for fear of boring everyone else.
Fair enough. Agreeing to disagree on something as complex as this is, I think, a good compromise. Been enjoyable discussing it so thanks.
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
That is a ridiculous comment. You do not have to be a member of a group to be able to observe and understand organisations that might be detrimental to their cause. Indeed it is often the case that those most closely/directly involved are the very people who are unable to judge what might be doing them good or harm within wider society.
An obvious example. Trump and his message are very bad for the lower middle classes of the USA - the very people he claims to be representing. And yet, whilst most external observers can see he is just using them and is very bad for their cause, that section of US society is the one most likely to support him because they believe he is acting in their best interests.
Yes but. An outsider telling them that has limited utility.
The alternative being to let them continue to be used and misled by organsations that are actively damaging their cause?
Of course I am not the one who should be doing the telling. But the question posed by Fairliered was whether or not there are organisations that can do this and would be taken seriously?
But you and Fairliered are the ones asserting it is damaging their cause. And "used and misled" is quite emotive language, implying it is deliberate on some level. Misguided may be better. I say it is for trans people to decide that.
And as in the example I have given you would be completely wrong. Indeed it is often the people who are being most used and hurt who are unable (or unwilling) to see it.
This is not, as you seek to claim, to say that we are saying that they are stupid or thick. This is a normal human condition and we see it all over the world and all the way down through history from otherwise highly intelligent people. None of us are immune from it. But it doesn't make it any less real.
Which may be true. We can all be wrong. Are you 100% convinced you are right? Or is it multi millions of funding from the Evangelical Right in the USA that has made a relatively innocuous niche issue so very controversial?
Um. No. Massive straw man from you there. It is controversial because it has real world effects on other people. The whole debate is about whether it is right to sacrifice one set of rights (those of straight and gay women) for the sake of another set of rights (those of Transgender women).
There must be a compromise available but organisations like Stonewall and Mermaids are unwilling to even discuss it and simply insist that their view and their way is the only one. They are as much fundamentalists in their own way as the idiots who simply oppose anything to do with transgender rights.
I very much agree with that. I don't think the money is a straw man though. You are a poster I respect. I suspect we aren't going to agree here at all. So I'm going to tap out for fear of boring everyone else.
"because I am so wrong that even I understand that I am wrong."
Interesting to see strong and visceral support for the Rwanda policy today from that noted fire-breathing foam-flecked right-winger.. Ken Clarke.
Sadly on this he is wrong. The policy - at least as it stands - is disgusting. In particular for me the idea that even if you are successful in your claim for asylum you are not allowed back into Britain but have to stay in Rwanda. That is simply inhuman.
I probably would not say inhuman, but it does to me seem entirely wrong. Which is why the lawfulness (or not) of the scheme, or whether Rwanda is a super nice place, are side issues.
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
That is a ridiculous comment. You do not have to be a member of a group to be able to observe and understand organisations that might be detrimental to their cause. Indeed it is often the case that those most closely/directly involved are the very people who are unable to judge what might be doing them good or harm within wider society.
An obvious example. Trump and his message are very bad for the lower middle classes of the USA - the very people he claims to be representing. And yet, whilst most external observers can see he is just using them and is very bad for their cause, that section of US society is the one most likely to support him because they believe he is acting in their best interests.
Yes but. An outsider telling them that has limited utility.
The alternative being to let them continue to be used and misled by organsations that are actively damaging their cause?
Of course I am not the one who should be doing the telling. But the question posed by Fairliered was whether or not there are organisations that can do this and would be taken seriously?
But you and Fairliered are the ones asserting it is damaging their cause. And "used and misled" is quite emotive language, implying it is deliberate on some level. Misguided may be better. I say it is for trans people to decide that.
And as in the example I have given you would be completely wrong. Indeed it is often the people who are being most used and hurt who are unable (or unwilling) to see it.
This is not, as you seek to claim, to say that we are saying that they are stupid or thick. This is a normal human condition and we see it all over the world and all the way down through history from otherwise highly intelligent people. None of us are immune from it. But it doesn't make it any less real.
Which may be true. We can all be wrong. Are you 100% convinced you are right? Or is it multi millions of funding from the Evangelical Right in the USA that has made a relatively innocuous niche issue so very controversial?
Um. No. Massive straw man from you there. It is controversial because it has real world effects on other people. The whole debate is about whether it is right to sacrifice one set of rights (those of straight and gay women) for the sake of another set of rights (those of Transgender women).
There must be a compromise available but organisations like Stonewall and Mermaids are unwilling to even discuss it and simply insist that their view and their way is the only one. They are as much fundamentalists in their own way as the idiots who simply oppose anything to do with transgender rights.
Organisations like BLM, Stonewall and Mermaids need to be put out to grass.
Interesting to see strong and visceral support for the Rwanda policy today from that noted fire-breathing foam-flecked right-winger.. Ken Clarke.
Sadly on this he is wrong. The policy - at least as it stands - is disgusting. In particular for me the idea that even if you are successful in your claim for asylum you are not allowed back into Britain but have to stay in Rwanda. That is simply inhuman.
Surely the point of asylum is to get to a safe country - not to get to the UK? If Rwanda is deemed a safe country, it isn't inhuman to have a refugee endup there.
Interesting to see strong and visceral support for the Rwanda policy today from that noted fire-breathing foam-flecked right-winger.. Ken Clarke.
Sadly on this he is wrong. The policy - at least as it stands - is disgusting. In particular for me the idea that even if you are successful in your claim for asylum you are not allowed back into Britain but have to stay in Rwanda. That is simply inhuman.
I probably would not say inhuman, but it does to me seem entirely wrong. Which is why the lawfulness (or not) of the scheme, or whether Rwanda is a super nice place, are side issues.
I do find the whole idea that we, as a country, can say that, yes your asylum claim is valid but we aren't going to let you come back anyway, is pretty inhuman to me.
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
You are quite right. Also, as a goy, I am strictly neutral as to whether the shoah was inimical to jews. Who am I to judge?
Non sequitur alert. And. To my mind, an extremely offensive one.
No, it makes perfect and very obvious sense. It offends you only because of the accuracy with which it skewers you.
It really doesn't.
You just aren't very good at this, are you?
I am left handed. Let's hypothesise an organisation which said that all left handers ahould be burned at the stake. Let's hypothesise another organisation which said: Left handers are absolutely united in saying that right handers should be burned at the stake.
4 questions
is organisation 1 inimical to left handers is organisation 2 inimical to left handers can question 1 only be answered by left handers can question 2 only be answered by left handers
Take your time, and don't trouble to publish your answers because 1. I am going to bed and 2. your conclusion that 2+2 = 5, or 3, is not going to alter my world picture.
What? Nobody is hypothisising burning anyone. No one other than you is suggesting they are. So let's not.
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
That is a ridiculous comment. You do not have to be a member of a group to be able to observe and understand organisations that might be detrimental to their cause. Indeed it is often the case that those most closely/directly involved are the very people who are unable to judge what might be doing them good or harm within wider society.
An obvious example. Trump and his message are very bad for the lower middle classes of the USA - the very people he claims to be representing. And yet, whilst most external observers can see he is just using them and is very bad for their cause, that section of US society is the one most likely to support him because they believe he is acting in their best interests.
Yes but. An outsider telling them that has limited utility.
The alternative being to let them continue to be used and misled by organsations that are actively damaging their cause?
Of course I am not the one who should be doing the telling. But the question posed by Fairliered was whether or not there are organisations that can do this and would be taken seriously?
But you and Fairliered are the ones asserting it is damaging their cause. And "used and misled" is quite emotive language, implying it is deliberate on some level. Misguided may be better. I say it is for trans people to decide that.
And as in the example I have given you would be completely wrong. Indeed it is often the people who are being most used and hurt who are unable (or unwilling) to see it.
This is not, as you seek to claim, to say that we are saying that they are stupid or thick. This is a normal human condition and we see it all over the world and all the way down through history from otherwise highly intelligent people. None of us are immune from it. But it doesn't make it any less real.
Which may be true. We can all be wrong. Are you 100% convinced you are right? Or is it multi millions of funding from the Evangelical Right in the USA that has made a relatively innocuous niche issue so very controversial?
Um. No. Massive straw man from you there. It is controversial because it has real world effects on other people. The whole debate is about whether it is right to sacrifice one set of rights (those of straight and gay women) for the sake of another set of rights (those of Transgender women).
There must be a compromise available but organisations like Stonewall and Mermaids are unwilling to even discuss it and simply insist that their view and their way is the only one. They are as much fundamentalists in their own way as the idiots who simply oppose anything to do with transgender rights.
I very much agree with that. I don't think the money is a straw man though. You are a poster I respect. I suspect we aren't going to agree here at all. So I'm going to tap out for fear of boring everyone else.
"because I am so wrong that even I understand that I am wrong."
sleep well.
Nah. Not in the slightest.
You still up? In that case
I am left handed. Let's hypothesise an organisation which said that all left handers ahould be burned at the stake. Let's hypothesise another organisation which said: Left handers are absolutely united in saying that right handers should be burned at the stake.
4 questions
is organisation 1 inimical to left handers is organisation 2 inimical to left handers can question 1 only be answered by left handers can question 2 only be answered by left handers
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
You are quite right. Also, as a goy, I am strictly neutral as to whether the shoah was inimical to jews. Who am I to judge?
Non sequitur alert. And. To my mind, an extremely offensive one.
No, it makes perfect and very obvious sense. It offends you only because of the accuracy with which it skewers you.
No it doesn't. You do this a lot. You produce an analogy that that you think proves your point but doesn't. It is always possible to have two different scenarios where in one case you have to be within a set to appreciate consequences and other scenarios where you can appreciate the consequences when outside of the set. You assume an analogy proves a point. It doesn't. Analogies are useful to clarify the logic of the point only, it doesn't make it conclusive.
OT ITV now A Spy Among Friends about Kim Philby is brilliant imo.
Thanks - we're recording* it.
(*For the youngsters among you that's a bit like streaming on demand but we'll be able fast forward through the ads.)
Youngsters? On here?
HYUFD.
Christ alive. The worst thing is, you're probably right.
And our lunar lagomorph Moonrabbit, too, and quite separately, I suspect.
Unverified, that one..
I’ve already met 1 PBer in town (who I won’t identity) so that verifies everything.
You need to explain how someone supposedly north of the border has avatar for obscure English village football team!
I already explained why. It was entirely because of a bizarre overreaction against FGR, by persons on this board, for reasons I didn't really understand. I found the fury so comically misplaced that I changed my avatar to their badge. I don't have any affinity to the team, nor to the place where they play. Indeed, I just had to look that up because I had no idea.
Interesting to see strong and visceral support for the Rwanda policy today from that noted fire-breathing foam-flecked right-winger.. Ken Clarke.
It's also interesting his arguments are factually wrong and intellectually bankrupt:
Despite protestations, no one has put forward an alternative to the PM’s scheme. We can no longer simply do nothing.”
People have put forward alternatives. Ken Clarke may find issue with them, but the suggestion we have to stick with Rwanda regardless of any merit because no-one has an alternative is simply wrong.
We should always do nothing unless you can argue your something is better than nothing.
It is a little ironic that we have a heading that "Silence is not golden" when the BBC are going to such lengths to protect the identity of one of their male presenters who is alleged to have acted in a seriously inappropriate way. I have no idea who this person is but I have to question why this identity is being withheld. Has it occurred to the police or the BBC that this may not be an entirely isolated event? Is it not at least possible that disclosure will bring forward other complainers?
I suspect that the identity will be fairly well known with 24 hours or so but I would still question why it was withheld at all.
None of which takes anything at all from the excellent points made by @Cyclefree in her thread header, of course.
Catching up with the local news, as medical treatment winds down for a week or two, and apologies if this one has been done.
Ashfield may become a two-way rather than three-way competition for the next General Election, since Jason Zadrozny (Council Leader) has been charged with a whole suite of offences around fraud and tax evasion (going back to 2007) plus a possession of Class A drugs charge, and Tom Hollis (former Deputy Council Leader) has also been charged with offences around failing to declare a pecuniary interest.
(At the last County election this spring, Hollis lost half his vote from approx 40% to under 20% but just beat Labour, and Zadrozny increased his from approx 50% to 63%.)
Interesting that Hollis has already been in court (and found guilty) for two seperate charges (harassment and careless driving) in the last year but still stayed on as a cabinet member.
Unless you get a jail sentence of 3 months or more (including suspended) you can stand as a councillor and remain an elected councillor.
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
You are quite right. Also, as a goy, I am strictly neutral as to whether the shoah was inimical to jews. Who am I to judge?
Non sequitur alert. And. To my mind, an extremely offensive one.
No, it makes perfect and very obvious sense. It offends you only because of the accuracy with which it skewers you.
No it doesn't. You do this a lot. You produce an analogy that that you think proves your point but doesn't. It is always possible to have two different scenarios where in one case you have to be within a set to appreciate consequences and other scenarios where you can appreciate the consequences when outside of the set. You assume an analogy proves a point. It doesn't. Analogies are useful to clarify the logic of the point only, it doesn't make it conclusive.
That makes no sense to me, it's like a cargo cult invocation of set theory. But I think you are the guy who had an operatic 48 hour wobbly at me shortly after I joined the site for presuming to disagree with you, because you had quote a degree in logic unquote, so definitely bedtime for me.
It is a little ironic that we have a heading that "Silence is not golden" when the BBC are going to such lengths to protect the identity of one of their male presenters who is alleged to have acted in a seriously inappropriate way. I have no idea who this person is but I have to question why this identity is being withheld. Has it occurred to the police or the BBC that this may not be an entirely isolated event? Is it not at least possible that disclosure will bring forward other complainers?
I suspect that the identity will be fairly well known with 24 hours or so but I would still question why it was withheld at all.
None of which takes anything at all from the excellent points made by @Cyclefree in her thread header, of course.
"Why isn't BBC presenter being named by the media?"
It is a little ironic that we have a heading that "Silence is not golden" when the BBC are going to such lengths to protect the identity of one of their male presenters who is alleged to have acted in a seriously inappropriate way. I have no idea who this person is but I have to question why this identity is being withheld. Has it occurred to the police or the BBC that this may not be an entirely isolated event? Is it not at least possible that disclosure will bring forward other complainers?
I suspect that the identity will be fairly well known with 24 hours or so but I would still question why it was withheld at all.
None of which takes anything at all from the excellent points made by @Cyclefree in her thread header, of course.
It is a little ironic that we have a heading that "Silence is not golden" when the BBC are going to such lengths to protect the identity of one of their male presenters who is alleged to have acted in a seriously inappropriate way. I have no idea who this person is but I have to question why this identity is being withheld. Has it occurred to the police or the BBC that this may not be an entirely isolated event? Is it not at least possible that disclosure will bring forward other complainers?
I suspect that the identity will be fairly well known with 24 hours or so but I would still question why it was withheld at all.
None of which takes anything at all from the excellent points made by @Cyclefree in her thread header, of course.
And the ID withholding seems to have massive unintended consequences in decimating the PB user base.
It is a little ironic that we have a heading that "Silence is not golden" when the BBC are going to such lengths to protect the identity of one of their male presenters who is alleged to have acted in a seriously inappropriate way. I have no idea who this person is but I have to question why this identity is being withheld. Has it occurred to the police or the BBC that this may not be an entirely isolated event? Is it not at least possible that disclosure will bring forward other complainers?
I suspect that the identity will be fairly well known with 24 hours or so but I would still question why it was withheld at all.
None of which takes anything at all from the excellent points made by @Cyclefree in her thread header, of course.
Unless he is charged with an offence there is absolutely no reason he should be named by the police or the BBC.
Even as I said earlier working out which presenters are not doing their usual slots may by process of elimination suggest who may have been suspended
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
That is a ridiculous comment. You do not have to be a member of a group to be able to observe and understand organisations that might be detrimental to their cause. Indeed it is often the case that those most closely/directly involved are the very people who are unable to judge what might be doing them good or harm within wider society.
An obvious example. Trump and his message are very bad for the lower middle classes of the USA - the very people he claims to be representing. And yet, whilst most external observers can see he is just using them and is very bad for their cause, that section of US society is the one most likely to support him because they believe he is acting in their best interests.
Yes but. An outsider telling them that has limited utility.
The alternative being to let them continue to be used and misled by organsations that are actively damaging their cause?
Of course I am not the one who should be doing the telling. But the question posed by Fairliered was whether or not there are organisations that can do this and would be taken seriously?
But you and Fairliered are the ones asserting it is damaging their cause. And "used and misled" is quite emotive language, implying it is deliberate on some level. Misguided may be better. I say it is for trans people to decide that.
And as in the example I have given you would be completely wrong. Indeed it is often the people who are being most used and hurt who are unable (or unwilling) to see it.
This is not, as you seek to claim, to say that we are saying that they are stupid or thick. This is a normal human condition and we see it all over the world and all the way down through history from otherwise highly intelligent people. None of us are immune from it. But it doesn't make it any less real.
Which may be true. We can all be wrong. Are you 100% convinced you are right? Or is it multi millions of funding from the Evangelical Right in the USA that has made a relatively innocuous niche issue so very controversial?
Um. No. Massive straw man from you there. It is controversial because it has real world effects on other people. The whole debate is about whether it is right to sacrifice one set of rights (those of straight and gay women) for the sake of another set of rights (those of Transgender women).
There must be a compromise available but organisations like Stonewall and Mermaids are unwilling to even discuss it and simply insist that their view and their way is the only one. They are as much fundamentalists in their own way as the idiots who simply oppose anything to do with transgender rights.
I very much agree with that. I don't think the money is a straw man though. Stonewall and Mermaids were about their business for years without controversy. You are a poster I respect. I suspect we aren't going to agree here at all. So I'm going to tap out for fear of boring everyone else.
Fair enough. Agreeing to disagree on something as complex as this is, I think, a good compromise. Been enjoyable discussing it so thanks.
Cheers. I appreciate your posts. They are always sensibly reasoned, even if I don't agree. And if I always agreed it would be pointless coming here anyways. It'd be like buying the Daily Mail or Guardian every day.
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
That is a ridiculous comment. You do not have to be a member of a group to be able to observe and understand organisations that might be detrimental to their cause. Indeed it is often the case that those most closely/directly involved are the very people who are unable to judge what might be doing them good or harm within wider society.
An obvious example. Trump and his message are very bad for the lower middle classes of the USA - the very people he claims to be representing. And yet, whilst most external observers can see he is just using them and is very bad for their cause, that section of US society is the one most likely to support him because they believe he is acting in their best interests.
Yes but. An outsider telling them that has limited utility.
The alternative being to let them continue to be used and misled by organsations that are actively damaging their cause?
Of course I am not the one who should be doing the telling. But the question posed by Fairliered was whether or not there are organisations that can do this and would be taken seriously?
But you and Fairliered are the ones asserting it is damaging their cause. And "used and misled" is quite emotive language, implying it is deliberate on some level. Misguided may be better. I say it is for trans people to decide that.
And as in the example I have given you would be completely wrong. Indeed it is often the people who are being most used and hurt who are unable (or unwilling) to see it.
This is not, as you seek to claim, to say that we are saying that they are stupid or thick. This is a normal human condition and we see it all over the world and all the way down through history from otherwise highly intelligent people. None of us are immune from it. But it doesn't make it any less real.
Which may be true. We can all be wrong. Are you 100% convinced you are right? Or is it multi millions of funding from the Evangelical Right in the USA that has made a relatively innocuous niche issue so very controversial?
Um. No. Massive straw man from you there. It is controversial because it has real world effects on other people. The whole debate is about whether it is right to sacrifice one set of rights (those of straight and gay women) for the sake of another set of rights (those of Transgender women).
There must be a compromise available but organisations like Stonewall and Mermaids are unwilling to even discuss it and simply insist that their view and their way is the only one. They are as much fundamentalists in their own way as the idiots who simply oppose anything to do with transgender rights.
I very much agree with that. I don't think the money is a straw man though. Stonewall and Mermaids were about their business for years without controversy. You are a poster I respect. I suspect we aren't going to agree here at all. So I'm going to tap out for fear of boring everyone else.
Fair enough. Agreeing to disagree on something as complex as this is, I think, a good compromise. Been enjoyable discussing it so thanks.
Cheers. I appreciate your posts. They are always sensibly reasoned, even if I don't agree. And if I always agreed it would be pointless coming here anyways. It'd be like buying the Daily Mail or Guardian every day.
Still not too late
I am left handed. Let's hypothesise an organisation which said that all left handers ahould be burned at the stake. Let's hypothesise another organisation which said: Left handers are absolutely united in saying that right handers should be burned at the stake.
4 questions
is organisation 1 inimical to left handers is organisation 2 inimical to left handers can question 1 only be answered by left handers can question 2 only be answered by left handers
Catching up with the local news, as medical treatment winds down for a week or two, and apologies if this one has been done.
Ashfield may become a two-way rather than three-way competition for the next General Election, since Jason Zadrozny (Council Leader) has been charged with a whole suite of offences around fraud and tax evasion (going back to 2007) plus a possession of Class A drugs charge, and Tom Hollis (former Deputy Council Leader) has also been charged with offences around failing to declare a pecuniary interest.
(At the last County election this spring, Hollis lost half his vote from approx 40% to under 20% but just beat Labour, and Zadrozny increased his from approx 50% to 63%.)
Interesting that Hollis has already been in court (and found guilty) for two seperate charges (harassment and careless driving) in the last year but still stayed on as a cabinet member.
They are playing a straight bat like the Hollis one before - both are staying in their current positions 'until proceedings are completed'.
The careless driving charge is imo really Dangerous. He was going down the main traffic calmed shopping street at 65mph (estimate by unmarked police car following), then pulled into a petrol station, then reversed into the police car. This street:
It's very Ashfield that it was after "a night out at the bingo", which perhaps also relates to Hollis' background being Labour. Lib Dems and Ashfield Indies don't typically do bingo, to me.
The harassment was quite a vicious little panto. He phone up 999, then started shouting things like 'keep away from me with that machete' down the phone.
It is a little ironic that we have a heading that "Silence is not golden" when the BBC are going to such lengths to protect the identity of one of their male presenters who is alleged to have acted in a seriously inappropriate way. I have no idea who this person is but I have to question why this identity is being withheld. Has it occurred to the police or the BBC that this may not be an entirely isolated event? Is it not at least possible that disclosure will bring forward other complainers?
I suspect that the identity will be fairly well known with 24 hours or so but I would still question why it was withheld at all.
None of which takes anything at all from the excellent points made by @Cyclefree in her thread header, of course.
Unless he is charged with an offence there is absolutely no reason he should be named by the police or the BBC.
Even as I said earlier working out which presenters are not doing their usual slots may by process of elimination suggest who may have been suspended
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
That is a ridiculous comment. You do not have to be a member of a group to be able to observe and understand organisations that might be detrimental to their cause. Indeed it is often the case that those most closely/directly involved are the very people who are unable to judge what might be doing them good or harm within wider society.
An obvious example. Trump and his message are very bad for the lower middle classes of the USA - the very people he claims to be representing. And yet, whilst most external observers can see he is just using them and is very bad for their cause, that section of US society is the one most likely to support him because they believe he is acting in their best interests.
Yes but. An outsider telling them that has limited utility.
The alternative being to let them continue to be used and misled by organsations that are actively damaging their cause?
Of course I am not the one who should be doing the telling. But the question posed by Fairliered was whether or not there are organisations that can do this and would be taken seriously?
But you and Fairliered are the ones asserting it is damaging their cause. And "used and misled" is quite emotive language, implying it is deliberate on some level. Misguided may be better. I say it is for trans people to decide that.
And as in the example I have given you would be completely wrong. Indeed it is often the people who are being most used and hurt who are unable (or unwilling) to see it.
This is not, as you seek to claim, to say that we are saying that they are stupid or thick. This is a normal human condition and we see it all over the world and all the way down through history from otherwise highly intelligent people. None of us are immune from it. But it doesn't make it any less real.
Which may be true. We can all be wrong. Are you 100% convinced you are right? Or is it multi millions of funding from the Evangelical Right in the USA that has made a relatively innocuous niche issue so very controversial?
Um. No. Massive straw man from you there. It is controversial because it has real world effects on other people. The whole debate is about whether it is right to sacrifice one set of rights (those of straight and gay women) for the sake of another set of rights (those of Transgender women).
There must be a compromise available but organisations like Stonewall and Mermaids are unwilling to even discuss it and simply insist that their view and their way is the only one. They are as much fundamentalists in their own way as the idiots who simply oppose anything to do with transgender rights.
I very much agree with that. I don't think the money is a straw man though. Stonewall and Mermaids were about their business for years without controversy. You are a poster I respect. I suspect we aren't going to agree here at all. So I'm going to tap out for fear of boring everyone else.
Fair enough. Agreeing to disagree on something as complex as this is, I think, a good compromise. Been enjoyable discussing it so thanks.
Cheers. I appreciate your posts. They are always sensibly reasoned, even if I don't agree. And if I always agreed it would be pointless coming here anyways. It'd be like buying the Daily Mail or Guardian every day.
Still not too late
I am left handed. Let's hypothesise an organisation which said that all left handers ahould be burned at the stake. Let's hypothesise another organisation which said: Left handers are absolutely united in saying that right handers should be burned at the stake.
4 questions
is organisation 1 inimical to left handers is organisation 2 inimical to left handers can question 1 only be answered by left handers can question 2 only be answered by left handers
Only you seem to be salivating at the idea that anyone is going to be cruelly executed. I'm not. Others say don't hate nothing at all except hatred.
Interesting to see strong and visceral support for the Rwanda policy today from that noted fire-breathing foam-flecked right-winger.. Ken Clarke.
Sadly on this he is wrong. The policy - at least as it stands - is disgusting. In particular for me the idea that even if you are successful in your claim for asylum you are not allowed back into Britain but have to stay in Rwanda. That is simply inhuman.
Surely the point of asylum is to get to a safe country - not to get to the UK? If Rwanda is deemed a safe country, it isn't inhuman to have a refugee endup there.
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
That is a ridiculous comment. You do not have to be a member of a group to be able to observe and understand organisations that might be detrimental to their cause. Indeed it is often the case that those most closely/directly involved are the very people who are unable to judge what might be doing them good or harm within wider society.
An obvious example. Trump and his message are very bad for the lower middle classes of the USA - the very people he claims to be representing. And yet, whilst most external observers can see he is just using them and is very bad for their cause, that section of US society is the one most likely to support him because they believe he is acting in their best interests.
Yes but. An outsider telling them that has limited utility.
The alternative being to let them continue to be used and misled by organsations that are actively damaging their cause?
Of course I am not the one who should be doing the telling. But the question posed by Fairliered was whether or not there are organisations that can do this and would be taken seriously?
But you and Fairliered are the ones asserting it is damaging their cause. And "used and misled" is quite emotive language, implying it is deliberate on some level. Misguided may be better. I say it is for trans people to decide that.
And as in the example I have given you would be completely wrong. Indeed it is often the people who are being most used and hurt who are unable (or unwilling) to see it.
This is not, as you seek to claim, to say that we are saying that they are stupid or thick. This is a normal human condition and we see it all over the world and all the way down through history from otherwise highly intelligent people. None of us are immune from it. But it doesn't make it any less real.
Which may be true. We can all be wrong. Are you 100% convinced you are right? Or is it multi millions of funding from the Evangelical Right in the USA that has made a relatively innocuous niche issue so very controversial?
Um. No. Massive straw man from you there. It is controversial because it has real world effects on other people. The whole debate is about whether it is right to sacrifice one set of rights (those of straight and gay women) for the sake of another set of rights (those of Transgender women).
There must be a compromise available but organisations like Stonewall and Mermaids are unwilling to even discuss it and simply insist that their view and their way is the only one. They are as much fundamentalists in their own way as the idiots who simply oppose anything to do with transgender rights.
I very much agree with that. I don't think the money is a straw man though. Stonewall and Mermaids were about their business for years without controversy. You are a poster I respect. I suspect we aren't going to agree here at all. So I'm going to tap out for fear of boring everyone else.
Fair enough. Agreeing to disagree on something as complex as this is, I think, a good compromise. Been enjoyable discussing it so thanks.
Cheers. I appreciate your posts. They are always sensibly reasoned, even if I don't agree. And if I always agreed it would be pointless coming here anyways. It'd be like buying the Daily Mail or Guardian every day.
Still not too late
I am left handed. Let's hypothesise an organisation which said that all left handers ahould be burned at the stake. Let's hypothesise another organisation which said: Left handers are absolutely united in saying that right handers should be burned at the stake.
4 questions
is organisation 1 inimical to left handers is organisation 2 inimical to left handers can question 1 only be answered by left handers can question 2 only be answered by left handers
Only you seem to be salivating at the idea that anyone is going to be cruelly executed. I'm not. Others say don't hate nothing at all except hatred.
Interesting to see strong and visceral support for the Rwanda policy today from that noted fire-breathing foam-flecked right-winger.. Ken Clarke.
Sadly on this he is wrong. The policy - at least as it stands - is disgusting. In particular for me the idea that even if you are successful in your claim for asylum you are not allowed back into Britain but have to stay in Rwanda. That is simply inhuman.
I probably would not say inhuman, but it does to me seem entirely wrong. Which is why the lawfulness (or not) of the scheme, or whether Rwanda is a super nice place, are side issues.
To a debate, yes, but how the government addresses the legal issues around Rwanda looks set to become a powerful political theme before the election.
Patrick O'Flynn reckons the Tories should let rip on this before the start of the summer recess. I would say he doesn't sufficiently understand the time aspect, but that's not necessarily true because one of his premises is that Labour are building a good weapon with the notion that "The Tories have given up", i.e. that a Labour majority is inevitable - and of course in war it's the enemy that lays down the law to you.
But I still think the Tories will bide their time. It's ideal for them that the Supreme Court decision is due some time around December IIRC.
This is how they win the election.
Son of 1992 or son of 1997 is a silly question but it can be made a bit more sensible by asking whether Starmer seems more like Kinnock or Blair and then the answer is obvious.
2024 won't be much like any election that took place before the Brexit referendum.
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
That is a ridiculous comment. You do not have to be a member of a group to be able to observe and understand organisations that might be detrimental to their cause. Indeed it is often the case that those most closely/directly involved are the very people who are unable to judge what might be doing them good or harm within wider society.
An obvious example. Trump and his message are very bad for the lower middle classes of the USA - the very people he claims to be representing. And yet, whilst most external observers can see he is just using them and is very bad for their cause, that section of US society is the one most likely to support him because they believe he is acting in their best interests.
Yes but. An outsider telling them that has limited utility.
The alternative being to let them continue to be used and misled by organsations that are actively damaging their cause?
Of course I am not the one who should be doing the telling. But the question posed by Fairliered was whether or not there are organisations that can do this and would be taken seriously?
But you and Fairliered are the ones asserting it is damaging their cause. And "used and misled" is quite emotive language, implying it is deliberate on some level. Misguided may be better. I say it is for trans people to decide that.
And as in the example I have given you would be completely wrong. Indeed it is often the people who are being most used and hurt who are unable (or unwilling) to see it.
This is not, as you seek to claim, to say that we are saying that they are stupid or thick. This is a normal human condition and we see it all over the world and all the way down through history from otherwise highly intelligent people. None of us are immune from it. But it doesn't make it any less real.
Which may be true. We can all be wrong. Are you 100% convinced you are right? Or is it multi millions of funding from the Evangelical Right in the USA that has made a relatively innocuous niche issue so very controversial?
Um. No. Massive straw man from you there. It is controversial because it has real world effects on other people. The whole debate is about whether it is right to sacrifice one set of rights (those of straight and gay women) for the sake of another set of rights (those of Transgender women).
There must be a compromise available but organisations like Stonewall and Mermaids are unwilling to even discuss it and simply insist that their view and their way is the only one. They are as much fundamentalists in their own way as the idiots who simply oppose anything to do with transgender rights.
I very much agree with that. I don't think the money is a straw man though. Stonewall and Mermaids were about their business for years without controversy. You are a poster I respect. I suspect we aren't going to agree here at all. So I'm going to tap out for fear of boring everyone else.
Fair enough. Agreeing to disagree on something as complex as this is, I think, a good compromise. Been enjoyable discussing it so thanks.
Cheers. I appreciate your posts. They are always sensibly reasoned, even if I don't agree. And if I always agreed it would be pointless coming here anyways. It'd be like buying the Daily Mail or Guardian every day.
Still not too late
I am left handed. Let's hypothesise an organisation which said that all left handers ahould be burned at the stake. Let's hypothesise another organisation which said: Left handers are absolutely united in saying that right handers should be burned at the stake.
4 questions
is organisation 1 inimical to left handers is organisation 2 inimical to left handers can question 1 only be answered by left handers can question 2 only be answered by left handers
Only you seem to be salivating at the idea that anyone is going to be cruelly executed. I'm not. Others say don't hate nothing at all except hatred.
Jesus
You seem very triggered by my refusal to engage with your entirely false analogy. No. I don't approve of the tyranny of the majority. Do you?
Catching up with the local news, as medical treatment winds down for a week or two, and apologies if this one has been done.
Ashfield may become a two-way rather than three-way competition for the next General Election, since Jason Zadrozny (Council Leader) has been charged with a whole suite of offences around fraud and tax evasion (going back to 2007) plus a possession of Class A drugs charge, and Tom Hollis (former Deputy Council Leader) has also been charged with offences around failing to declare a pecuniary interest.
(At the last County election this spring, Hollis lost half his vote from approx 40% to under 20% but just beat Labour, and Zadrozny increased his from approx 50% to 63%.)
Interesting that Hollis has already been in court (and found guilty) for two seperate charges (harassment and careless driving) in the last year but still stayed on as a cabinet member.
Unless you get a jail sentence of 3 months or more (including suspended) you can stand as a councillor and remain an elected councillor.
Both were Ashfield Independents I believe
They increased their seats at the Election, and now have 32 out of 35 at District level, and all the Ashfield seats at County level. Politically very resilient.
Northern_Ali, I suggest you delete your post now or you'll get banned
Seriously? It was obviously a joke? But I'll take your advice.....
I'm not an expert, but it's not worth the risk.
The key point being, you'd be taking a risk on behalf of not just yourself but those who have the power to ban you as well. Which seems like an obvious way to get yourself booted.
Interesting to see strong and visceral support for the Rwanda policy today from that noted fire-breathing foam-flecked right-winger.. Ken Clarke.
Sadly on this he is wrong. The policy - at least as it stands - is disgusting. In particular for me the idea that even if you are successful in your claim for asylum you are not allowed back into Britain but have to stay in Rwanda. That is simply inhuman.
I probably would not say inhuman, but it does to me seem entirely wrong. Which is why the lawfulness (or not) of the scheme, or whether Rwanda is a super nice place, are side issues.
To a debate, yes, but how the government addresses the legal issues around Rwanda looks set to become a powerful political theme before the election.
Patrick O'Flynn reckons the Tories should let rip on this before the start of the summer recess. I would say he doesn't sufficiently understand the time aspect, but that's not necessarily true because one of his premises is that Labour are building a good weapon with the notion that "The Tories have given up", i.e. that a Labour majority is inevitable - and of course in war it's the enemy that lays down the law to you.
But I still think they'll bide their time. It's ideal for the Tories that the Supreme Court decision is due some time around December IIRC.
This is how the Tories win the election.
Son of 1992 or son of 1997 is a silly question but it can be made a bit more sensible by asking whether Starmer seems more like Kinnock or Blair and then the answer is obvious.
2024 won't be much like any election that took place before the Brexit referendum.
If Sunak scrapes home in a son of 1992 you can guarantee the election after would be son of 1997 if not worse, perhaps with Labour led by the more charismatic and Blairite Wes Streeting to Starmer's slightly less geeky Ed Miliband 2.
At least if the Tories lose this time Labour also then have to deal with the economic problems now
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
I disagree - the argument in its most basic form is that radical activism undermines support from the mainstream political community and therefore it’s not helpful (ie it is inimical to trans rights getting the support it might otherwise do by creating a backlash)
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
That is a ridiculous comment. You do not have to be a member of a group to be able to observe and understand organisations that might be detrimental to their cause. Indeed it is often the case that those most closely/directly involved are the very people who are unable to judge what might be doing them good or harm within wider society.
An obvious example. Trump and his message are very bad for the lower middle classes of the USA - the very people he claims to be representing. And yet, whilst most external observers can see he is just using them and is very bad for their cause, that section of US society is the one most likely to support him because they believe he is acting in their best interests.
Yes but. An outsider telling them that has limited utility.
The alternative being to let them continue to be used and misled by organsations that are actively damaging their cause?
Of course I am not the one who should be doing the telling. But the question posed by Fairliered was whether or not there are organisations that can do this and would be taken seriously?
But you and Fairliered are the ones asserting it is damaging their cause. And "used and misled" is quite emotive language, implying it is deliberate on some level. Misguided may be better. I say it is for trans people to decide that.
And as in the example I have given you would be completely wrong. Indeed it is often the people who are being most used and hurt who are unable (or unwilling) to see it.
This is not, as you seek to claim, to say that we are saying that they are stupid or thick. This is a normal human condition and we see it all over the world and all the way down through history from otherwise highly intelligent people. None of us are immune from it. But it doesn't make it any less real.
Which may be true. We can all be wrong. Are you 100% convinced you are right? Or is it multi millions of funding from the Evangelical Right in the USA that has made a relatively innocuous niche issue so very controversial?
Um. No. Massive straw man from you there. It is controversial because it has real world effects on other people. The whole debate is about whether it is right to sacrifice one set of rights (those of straight and gay women) for the sake of another set of rights (those of Transgender women).
There must be a compromise available but organisations like Stonewall and Mermaids are unwilling to even discuss it and simply insist that their view and their way is the only one. They are as much fundamentalists in their own way as the idiots who simply oppose anything to do with transgender rights.
I very much agree with that. I don't think the money is a straw man though. Stonewall and Mermaids were about their business for years without controversy. You are a poster I respect. I suspect we aren't going to agree here at all. So I'm going to tap out for fear of boring everyone else.
Fair enough. Agreeing to disagree on something as complex as this is, I think, a good compromise. Been enjoyable discussing it so thanks.
Cheers. I appreciate your posts. They are always sensibly reasoned, even if I don't agree. And if I always agreed it would be pointless coming here anyways. It'd be like buying the Daily Mail or Guardian every day.
Still not too late
I am left handed. Let's hypothesise an organisation which said that all left handers ahould be burned at the stake. Let's hypothesise another organisation which said: Left handers are absolutely united in saying that right handers should be burned at the stake.
4 questions
is organisation 1 inimical to left handers is organisation 2 inimical to left handers can question 1 only be answered by left handers can question 2 only be answered by left handers
Only you seem to be salivating at the idea that anyone is going to be cruelly executed. I'm not. Others say don't hate nothing at all except hatred.
Jesus
You seem very triggered by my refusal to engage with your entirely false analogy. No. I don't approve of the tyranny of the majority. Do you?
IPSOS: 23rd February Do you support the idea of "tyranny of the majority"? Yes: 56% No: 32% DK: 12%
Statistician's note: the Noes were rounded after the survey and processed into a rehabilitation facility
It is a little ironic that we have a heading that "Silence is not golden" when the BBC are going to such lengths to protect the identity of one of their male presenters who is alleged to have acted in a seriously inappropriate way. I have no idea who this person is but I have to question why this identity is being withheld. Has it occurred to the police or the BBC that this may not be an entirely isolated event? Is it not at least possible that disclosure will bring forward other complainers?
I suspect that the identity will be fairly well known with 24 hours or so but I would still question why it was withheld at all.
None of which takes anything at all from the excellent points made by @Cyclefree in her thread header, of course.
Unless he is charged with an offence there is absolutely no reason he should be named by the police or the BBC.
Even as I said earlier working out which presenters are not doing their usual slots may by process of elimination suggest who may have been suspended
Deleted on advice.
My guess is Jimmy Saville. Always thought he was a wrong'un.
It is a little ironic that we have a heading that "Silence is not golden" when the BBC are going to such lengths to protect the identity of one of their male presenters who is alleged to have acted in a seriously inappropriate way. I have no idea who this person is but I have to question why this identity is being withheld. Has it occurred to the police or the BBC that this may not be an entirely isolated event? Is it not at least possible that disclosure will bring forward other complainers?
I suspect that the identity will be fairly well known with 24 hours or so but I would still question why it was withheld at all.
None of which takes anything at all from the excellent points made by @Cyclefree in her thread header, of course.
Unless he is charged with an offence there is absolutely no reason he should be named by the police or the BBC.
Even as I said earlier working out which presenters are not doing their usual slots may by process of elimination suggest who may have been suspended
Deleted on advice.
My guess is Jimmy Saville. Always thought he was a wrong'un.
The BBC's fulsome tribute to him on their evening news show just after he died is one of the most embarrassing things they've ever done.
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
That is a ridiculous comment. You do not have to be a member of a group to be able to observe and understand organisations that might be detrimental to their cause. Indeed it is often the case that those most closely/directly involved are the very people who are unable to judge what might be doing them good or harm within wider society.
An obvious example. Trump and his message are very bad for the lower middle classes of the USA - the very people he claims to be representing. And yet, whilst most external observers can see he is just using them and is very bad for their cause, that section of US society is the one most likely to support him because they believe he is acting in their best interests.
Yes but. An outsider telling them that has limited utility.
The alternative being to let them continue to be used and misled by organsations that are actively damaging their cause?
Of course I am not the one who should be doing the telling. But the question posed by Fairliered was whether or not there are organisations that can do this and would be taken seriously?
But you and Fairliered are the ones asserting it is damaging their cause. And "used and misled" is quite emotive language, implying it is deliberate on some level. Misguided may be better. I say it is for trans people to decide that.
And as in the example I have given you would be completely wrong. Indeed it is often the people who are being most used and hurt who are unable (or unwilling) to see it.
This is not, as you seek to claim, to say that we are saying that they are stupid or thick. This is a normal human condition and we see it all over the world and all the way down through history from otherwise highly intelligent people. None of us are immune from it. But it doesn't make it any less real.
Which may be true. We can all be wrong. Are you 100% convinced you are right? Or is it multi millions of funding from the Evangelical Right in the USA that has made a relatively innocuous niche issue so very controversial?
Um. No. Massive straw man from you there. It is controversial because it has real world effects on other people. The whole debate is about whether it is right to sacrifice one set of rights (those of straight and gay women) for the sake of another set of rights (those of Transgender women).
There must be a compromise available but organisations like Stonewall and Mermaids are unwilling to even discuss it and simply insist that their view and their way is the only one. They are as much fundamentalists in their own way as the idiots who simply oppose anything to do with transgender rights.
I very much agree with that. I don't think the money is a straw man though. Stonewall and Mermaids were about their business for years without controversy. You are a poster I respect. I suspect we aren't going to agree here at all. So I'm going to tap out for fear of boring everyone else.
Fair enough. Agreeing to disagree on something as complex as this is, I think, a good compromise. Been enjoyable discussing it so thanks.
Cheers. I appreciate your posts. They are always sensibly reasoned, even if I don't agree. And if I always agreed it would be pointless coming here anyways. It'd be like buying the Daily Mail or Guardian every day.
Still not too late
I am left handed. Let's hypothesise an organisation which said that all left handers ahould be burned at the stake. Let's hypothesise another organisation which said: Left handers are absolutely united in saying that right handers should be burned at the stake.
4 questions
is organisation 1 inimical to left handers is organisation 2 inimical to left handers can question 1 only be answered by left handers can question 2 only be answered by left handers
Only you seem to be salivating at the idea that anyone is going to be cruelly executed. I'm not. Others say don't hate nothing at all except hatred.
Jesus
You seem very triggered by my refusal to engage with your entirely false analogy. No. I don't approve of the tyranny of the majority. Do you?
No, I am just trying to pin you down as stupid. Which I have done. What you are selling, is the tyranny of the bien-pensant majority on behalf of a very small, unknown to you, minority. I know very well one f to m transexual. It's a very, very rare thing, so if you come back and claim the same I am going to be very, very conservative about believing you. And I can promise you that what transexuals hate most is people like you lining up behind people who castrate 16 year old boys because you think it makes you look right on, man, ostensibly on their behalf.
It is a little ironic that we have a heading that "Silence is not golden" when the BBC are going to such lengths to protect the identity of one of their male presenters who is alleged to have acted in a seriously inappropriate way. I have no idea who this person is but I have to question why this identity is being withheld. Has it occurred to the police or the BBC that this may not be an entirely isolated event? Is it not at least possible that disclosure will bring forward other complainers?
I suspect that the identity will be fairly well known with 24 hours or so but I would still question why it was withheld at all.
None of which takes anything at all from the excellent points made by @Cyclefree in her thread header, of course.
Unless he is charged with an offence there is absolutely no reason he should be named by the police or the BBC.
Even as I said earlier working out which presenters are not doing their usual slots may by process of elimination suggest who may have been suspended
Deleted on advice.
My guess is Jimmy Saville. Always thought he was a wrong'un.
The BBC's fulsome tribute to him on their evening news show just after he died is one of the most embarrassing things they've ever done.
Well Sir Jim may have been an evil paedophile but he did pull in 20 million viewers every Saturday night in the 1980s and hosted Top of the Pops for years and knew half the establishment and was a big charity fundraiser. They couldn't exactly ignore his death either
I know this is probably a stupid post but I'll try it anyway and see whether any replies ripping it to shreds instantly prove to me beyond reasonable doubt *why* it is stupid.
If (hypothetically) you change most gender-based rights to become entirely sex-based rights instead, but simultaneously make gender recognition/change easier, can you protect biological women's rights whilst also allowing for what seems like entirely reasonable potential for people to choose the gender that best fits them?
e.g. evil trans rapist still has to go to men's prison because sex = male even if self-identifying as female whilst at the same time we are not stopping people who reasonably wish to identify as their preferred gender from quietly living out the lives they are entitled to?
Given that most trans people aren't rapists, it seems reasonable to say we need to find some middle path that clearly protects biological women without demonising everyone who wants to identify differently, regardless of exactly how far they take that transition.
The argument is that in insisting they go to a male prison you are treating them as different to other women so you are not respecting their choice
a) they are different from other women - they are men b) you do not have to respect their choice.
I don’t agree with their position, so difficult for me to argue it. But rendering a choice meaningless will not be seen as a solution - essentially it’s saying “I can’t discriminate against black people but I can discriminate against African Americans”
It is a little ironic that we have a heading that "Silence is not golden" when the BBC are going to such lengths to protect the identity of one of their male presenters who is alleged to have acted in a seriously inappropriate way. I have no idea who this person is but I have to question why this identity is being withheld. Has it occurred to the police or the BBC that this may not be an entirely isolated event? Is it not at least possible that disclosure will bring forward other complainers?
I suspect that the identity will be fairly well known with 24 hours or so but I would still question why it was withheld at all.
None of which takes anything at all from the excellent points made by @Cyclefree in her thread header, of course.
Hmmm
You are surprised that the reaction to the legal disasters in naming people in earlier cases has resulted in a new policy? Which is futile, stupid and probably makes things worse?
Perhaps I could interest you in some brand new, zero mileage, ferries?
It is a little ironic that we have a heading that "Silence is not golden" when the BBC are going to such lengths to protect the identity of one of their male presenters who is alleged to have acted in a seriously inappropriate way. I have no idea who this person is but I have to question why this identity is being withheld. Has it occurred to the police or the BBC that this may not be an entirely isolated event? Is it not at least possible that disclosure will bring forward other complainers?
I suspect that the identity will be fairly well known with 24 hours or so but I would still question why it was withheld at all.
None of which takes anything at all from the excellent points made by @Cyclefree in her thread header, of course.
Unless he is charged with an offence there is absolutely no reason he should be named by the police or the BBC.
Even as I said earlier working out which presenters are not doing their usual slots may by process of elimination suggest who may have been suspended
Deleted on advice.
My guess is Jimmy Saville. Always thought he was a wrong'un.
The BBC's fulsome tribute to him on their evening news show just after he died is one of the most embarrassing things they've ever done.
Well Sir Jim may have been an evil paedophile but he did pull in 20 million viewers every Saturday night in the 1980s and hosted Top of the Pops for years and knew half the establishment and was a big charity fundraiser. They couldn't exactly ignore his death either
They could have just announced his death and left it at that, (given the investigations that were going on at the time).
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
That is a ridiculous comment. You do not have to be a member of a group to be able to observe and understand organisations that might be detrimental to their cause. Indeed it is often the case that those most closely/directly involved are the very people who are unable to judge what might be doing them good or harm within wider society.
An obvious example. Trump and his message are very bad for the lower middle classes of the USA - the very people he claims to be representing. And yet, whilst most external observers can see he is just using them and is very bad for their cause, that section of US society is the one most likely to support him because they believe he is acting in their best interests.
Yes but. An outsider telling them that has limited utility.
The alternative being to let them continue to be used and misled by organsations that are actively damaging their cause?
Of course I am not the one who should be doing the telling. But the question posed by Fairliered was whether or not there are organisations that can do this and would be taken seriously?
But you and Fairliered are the ones asserting it is damaging their cause. And "used and misled" is quite emotive language, implying it is deliberate on some level. Misguided may be better. I say it is for trans people to decide that.
And as in the example I have given you would be completely wrong. Indeed it is often the people who are being most used and hurt who are unable (or unwilling) to see it.
This is not, as you seek to claim, to say that we are saying that they are stupid or thick. This is a normal human condition and we see it all over the world and all the way down through history from otherwise highly intelligent people. None of us are immune from it. But it doesn't make it any less real.
Which may be true. We can all be wrong. Are you 100% convinced you are right? Or is it multi millions of funding from the Evangelical Right in the USA that has made a relatively innocuous niche issue so very controversial?
Um. No. Massive straw man from you there. It is controversial because it has real world effects on other people. The whole debate is about whether it is right to sacrifice one set of rights (those of straight and gay women) for the sake of another set of rights (those of Transgender women).
There must be a compromise available but organisations like Stonewall and Mermaids are unwilling to even discuss it and simply insist that their view and their way is the only one. They are as much fundamentalists in their own way as the idiots who simply oppose anything to do with transgender rights.
I very much agree with that. I don't think the money is a straw man though. Stonewall and Mermaids were about their business for years without controversy. You are a poster I respect. I suspect we aren't going to agree here at all. So I'm going to tap out for fear of boring everyone else.
Fair enough. Agreeing to disagree on something as complex as this is, I think, a good compromise. Been enjoyable discussing it so thanks.
Cheers. I appreciate your posts. They are always sensibly reasoned, even if I don't agree. And if I always agreed it would be pointless coming here anyways. It'd be like buying the Daily Mail or Guardian every day.
Still not too late
I am left handed. Let's hypothesise an organisation which said that all left handers ahould be burned at the stake. Let's hypothesise another organisation which said: Left handers are absolutely united in saying that right handers should be burned at the stake.
4 questions
is organisation 1 inimical to left handers is organisation 2 inimical to left handers can question 1 only be answered by left handers can question 2 only be answered by left handers
Only you seem to be salivating at the idea that anyone is going to be cruelly executed. I'm not. Others say don't hate nothing at all except hatred.
Jesus
You seem very triggered by my refusal to engage with your entirely false analogy. No. I don't approve of the tyranny of the majority. Do you?
And while I am at it, my technique for dealing with false analogies is pointing out where the analogy breaks down. Yours is the use of the word "entirely." Which do you think is better?
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
You are quite right. Also, as a goy, I am strictly neutral as to whether the shoah was inimical to jews. Who am I to judge?
Non sequitur alert. And. To my mind, an extremely offensive one.
No, it makes perfect and very obvious sense. It offends you only because of the accuracy with which it skewers you.
No it doesn't. You do this a lot. You produce an analogy that that you think proves your point but doesn't. It is always possible to have two different scenarios where in one case you have to be within a set to appreciate consequences and other scenarios where you can appreciate the consequences when outside of the set. You assume an analogy proves a point. It doesn't. Analogies are useful to clarify the logic of the point only, it doesn't make it conclusive.
That makes no sense to me, it's like a cargo cult invocation of set theory. But I think you are the guy who had an operatic 48 hour wobbly at me shortly after I joined the site for presuming to disagree with you, because you had quote a degree in logic unquote, so definitely bedtime for me.
a) I thought we got over that, but the wobbly was because you were very insensitive simply because I had to leave the site for a few hours to sort out the clearance of my deceased father's house so had to postpone the discussion to which you reacted badly. Some things are more important than PB. I can't believe you don't get that.
b) The degree in logic jibe was because you are quite arrogant about this stuff. I noted you used the same quote ' You are not very good at this are you ' again - very arrogant. That is why you got that comment.
c) In terms of the contents of the discussion you think you can always appreciate something even if you outside of the set. That is clearly not true. There are lots of examples where that isn't true. So giving an analogy which supports your view doesn't mean your view is always right. Analogies have their limitations. Your analogy was very clear cut, but it doesn't prove what @dixiedean posted wasn't also true (even though that was just his opinion). Nearly all your arguments rely on analogies and they are always very good and can make the logical argument very clear. However that doesn't make it always right though.
In a nut shell one can think of examples where to appreciate something you have to be part of it and other examples where you don't have to be part of it to appreciate it. Because you have given an example of the latter doesn't mean the former doesn't exist.
I know this is probably a stupid post but I'll try it anyway and see whether any replies ripping it to shreds instantly prove to me beyond reasonable doubt *why* it is stupid.
If (hypothetically) you change most gender-based rights to become entirely sex-based rights instead, but simultaneously make gender recognition/change easier, can you protect biological women's rights whilst also allowing for what seems like entirely reasonable potential for people to choose the gender that best fits them?
e.g. evil trans rapist still has to go to men's prison because sex = male even if self-identifying as female whilst at the same time we are not stopping people who reasonably wish to identify as their preferred gender from quietly living out the lives they are entitled to?
Given that most trans people aren't rapists, it seems reasonable to say we need to find some middle path that clearly protects biological women without demonising everyone who wants to identify differently, regardless of exactly how far they take that transition.
The argument is that in insisting they go to a male prison you are treating them as different to other women so you are not respecting their choice
Regardless of their gender and sex, there is a duty of care both to the prisoner and to other inmates to prevent interpersonal violence. They should be on a separate unit whichever prison.
That seems to me to be the simplest and best solution. Although they’ll scream “segregation”
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
You are quite right. Also, as a goy, I am strictly neutral as to whether the shoah was inimical to jews. Who am I to judge?
Non sequitur alert. And. To my mind, an extremely offensive one.
No, it makes perfect and very obvious sense. It offends you only because of the accuracy with which it skewers you.
No it doesn't. You do this a lot. You produce an analogy that that you think proves your point but doesn't. It is always possible to have two different scenarios where in one case you have to be within a set to appreciate consequences and other scenarios where you can appreciate the consequences when outside of the set. You assume an analogy proves a point. It doesn't. Analogies are useful to clarify the logic of the point only, it doesn't make it conclusive.
That makes no sense to me, it's like a cargo cult invocation of set theory. But I think you are the guy who had an operatic 48 hour wobbly at me shortly after I joined the site for presuming to disagree with you, because you had quote a degree in logic unquote, so definitely bedtime for me.
a) I thought we got over that, but the wobbly was because you were very insensitive simply because I had to leave the site for a few hours to sort out the clearance of my deceased father's house so had to postpone the discussion to which you reacted badly. Some things are more important than PB. I can't believe you don't get that.
b) The degree in logic jibe was because you are quite arrogant about this stuff. I noted you used the same quote ' You are not very good at this are you ' again - very arrogant. That is why you got that comment.
c) In terms of the contents of the discussion you think you can always appreciate something even if you outside of the set. That is clearly not true. There are lots of examples where that isn't true. So giving an analogy which supports your view doesn't mean your view is always right. Analogies have their limitations. Your analogy was very clear cut, but it doesn't prove what @dixiedean posted wasn't also true (admittedly that was a matter of opinion). Nearly all your arguments rely on analogies and they are always very good and can make the logical argument very clear. However that doesn't make it always right though.
In a nut shell one can think of examples where to appreciate something you have to be part of it and other examples where you don't have to be part of it to appreciate it. Because you have given an example of the latter doesn't mean the former doesn't exist.
"Stopping overnight in one of these small dead towns, we discovered to our displeasure that the only inn was owned and run by English people, and that the garden outside was full of English attracted to live in the area by the cheapness of the property. The only Frenchman among them was a severe alcoholic with an earring, the outward sign of his nonconformity, his desire to drink in public outweighing the disadvantage of having to do it among the English.
What an unattractive people the English have become, how utterly charmless! They are not necessarily bad people in themselves as individuals, but their contemporary culture has turned them into the least appealing people in the world, at least of those known to me."
I know this is probably a stupid post but I'll try it anyway and see whether any replies ripping it to shreds instantly prove to me beyond reasonable doubt *why* it is stupid.
If (hypothetically) you change most gender-based rights to become entirely sex-based rights instead, but simultaneously make gender recognition/change easier, can you protect biological women's rights whilst also allowing for what seems like entirely reasonable potential for people to choose the gender that best fits them?
e.g. evil trans rapist still has to go to men's prison because sex = male even if self-identifying as female whilst at the same time we are not stopping people who reasonably wish to identify as their preferred gender from quietly living out the lives they are entitled to?
Given that most trans people aren't rapists, it seems reasonable to say we need to find some middle path that clearly protects biological women without demonising everyone who wants to identify differently, regardless of exactly how far they take that transition.
The argument is that in insisting they go to a male prison you are treating them as different to other women so you are not respecting their choice
a) they are different from other women - they are men b) you do not have to respect their choice.
I don’t agree with their position, so difficult for me to argue it. But rendering a choice meaningless will not be seen as a solution - essentially it’s saying “I can’t discriminate against black people but I can discriminate against African Americans”
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
That is a ridiculous comment. You do not have to be a member of a group to be able to observe and understand organisations that might be detrimental to their cause. Indeed it is often the case that those most closely/directly involved are the very people who are unable to judge what might be doing them good or harm within wider society.
An obvious example. Trump and his message are very bad for the lower middle classes of the USA - the very people he claims to be representing. And yet, whilst most external observers can see he is just using them and is very bad for their cause, that section of US society is the one most likely to support him because they believe he is acting in their best interests.
Yes but. An outsider telling them that has limited utility.
The alternative being to let them continue to be used and misled by organsations that are actively damaging their cause?
Of course I am not the one who should be doing the telling. But the question posed by Fairliered was whether or not there are organisations that can do this and would be taken seriously?
But you and Fairliered are the ones asserting it is damaging their cause. And "used and misled" is quite emotive language, implying it is deliberate on some level. Misguided may be better. I say it is for trans people to decide that.
And as in the example I have given you would be completely wrong. Indeed it is often the people who are being most used and hurt who are unable (or unwilling) to see it.
This is not, as you seek to claim, to say that we are saying that they are stupid or thick. This is a normal human condition and we see it all over the world and all the way down through history from otherwise highly intelligent people. None of us are immune from it. But it doesn't make it any less real.
Which may be true. We can all be wrong. Are you 100% convinced you are right? Or is it multi millions of funding from the Evangelical Right in the USA that has made a relatively innocuous niche issue so very controversial?
Um. No. Massive straw man from you there. It is controversial because it has real world effects on other people. The whole debate is about whether it is right to sacrifice one set of rights (those of straight and gay women) for the sake of another set of rights (those of Transgender women).
There must be a compromise available but organisations like Stonewall and Mermaids are unwilling to even discuss it and simply insist that their view and their way is the only one. They are as much fundamentalists in their own way as the idiots who simply oppose anything to do with transgender rights.
I very much agree with that. I don't think the money is a straw man though. Stonewall and Mermaids were about their business for years without controversy. You are a poster I respect. I suspect we aren't going to agree here at all. So I'm going to tap out for fear of boring everyone else.
Fair enough. Agreeing to disagree on something as complex as this is, I think, a good compromise. Been enjoyable discussing it so thanks.
Cheers. I appreciate your posts. They are always sensibly reasoned, even if I don't agree. And if I always agreed it would be pointless coming here anyways. It'd be like buying the Daily Mail or Guardian every day.
Still not too late
I am left handed. Let's hypothesise an organisation which said that all left handers ahould be burned at the stake. Let's hypothesise another organisation which said: Left handers are absolutely united in saying that right handers should be burned at the stake.
4 questions
is organisation 1 inimical to left handers is organisation 2 inimical to left handers can question 1 only be answered by left handers can question 2 only be answered by left handers
Only you seem to be salivating at the idea that anyone is going to be cruelly executed. I'm not. Others say don't hate nothing at all except hatred.
Jesus
You seem very triggered by my refusal to engage with your entirely false analogy. No. I don't approve of the tyranny of the majority. Do you?
Regrettable that Azarenka was booed off the court earlier. They just showed it on BBC Red Button.
I don't see why. She should not have been issued with a visa, in my view (I would do the same for all Russians)
Good evening all. Dealing with things that pop into my head in no particular order.
@Richard_Tyndall . Thank you for the mention regarding my comment stream. I shall have to write it out as an article and slap it on Substack or something @Cyclefree: a good article, although it does show you at your best and worst. Good, well-written, too long, nothing to do with betting (although obviously about politics in this case, so there's that) @ydoethur . Thank you for the origin of the "reaction always survives" quote, although could you be so kind as to indicate *which* journal called "Justice" you were referring to plz? @rcs1000. You banned @Leon? Is this a ban ban, or will we see a @Noel or @Elon boasting of the alphaness of his sagging frog-shaped body within the next 48hrs? @all with respect to the trans issue, there is one group of people who believe there are no circumstances in which a man can legally be a woman, and another group who believe that there are. It is the extent to which the former is believed, and the extent to which the latter is believed, that is the schwerpunkt (sp?) of the argument. Until this is understood, all discussion is peripheral. @all with respect to the BBC presenter, I prefer to wait until formal identification. We can speculate all day, but without evidence it's silly.
If anybody raises any other issues that need my supernal wisdom, I shall bless you with my reckons as they arise
"Stopping overnight in one of these small dead towns, we discovered to our displeasure that the only inn was owned and run by English people, and that the garden outside was full of English attracted to live in the area by the cheapness of the property. The only Frenchman among them was a severe alcoholic with an earring, the outward sign of his nonconformity, his desire to drink in public outweighing the disadvantage of having to do it among the English.
What an unattractive people the English have become, how utterly charmless! They are not necessarily bad people in themselves as individuals, but their contemporary culture has turned them into the least appealing people in the world, at least of those known to me."
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
You are quite right. Also, as a goy, I am strictly neutral as to whether the shoah was inimical to jews. Who am I to judge?
Non sequitur alert. And. To my mind, an extremely offensive one.
No, it makes perfect and very obvious sense. It offends you only because of the accuracy with which it skewers you.
No it doesn't. You do this a lot. You produce an analogy that that you think proves your point but doesn't. It is always possible to have two different scenarios where in one case you have to be within a set to appreciate consequences and other scenarios where you can appreciate the consequences when outside of the set. You assume an analogy proves a point. It doesn't. Analogies are useful to clarify the logic of the point only, it doesn't make it conclusive.
That makes no sense to me, it's like a cargo cult invocation of set theory. But I think you are the guy who had an operatic 48 hour wobbly at me shortly after I joined the site for presuming to disagree with you, because you had quote a degree in logic unquote, so definitely bedtime for me.
a) I thought we got over that, but the wobbly was because you were very insensitive simply because I had to leave the site for a few hours to sort out the clearance of my deceased father's house so had to postpone the discussion to which you reacted badly. Some things are more important than PB. I can't believe you don't get that.
b) The degree in logic jibe was because you are quite arrogant about this stuff. I noted you used the same quote ' You are not very good at this are you ' again - very arrogant. That is why you got that comment.
c) In terms of the contents of the discussion you think you can always appreciate something even if you outside of the set. That is clearly not true. There are lots of examples where that isn't true. So giving an analogy which supports your view doesn't mean your view is always right. Analogies have their limitations. Your analogy was very clear cut, but it doesn't prove what @dixiedean posted wasn't also true (admittedly that was a matter of opinion). Nearly all your arguments rely on analogies and they are always very good and can make the logical argument very clear. However that doesn't make it always right though.
In a nut shell one can think of examples where to appreciate something you have to be part of it and other examples where you don't have to be part of it to appreciate it. Because you have given an example of the latter doesn't mean the former doesn't exist.
Can I recommend you read Surfaces and Essences by Douglas Hofstadter and Emmanuel Sander? In it, they argue for the centrality and inescapability of analogy in human reasoning. I think you would be convinced to reword what you've said above in the light of that book. That said, I think you'd correct in what you're getting at. Analogies are sometime inapplicable to a given situation. But you can't rid yourself of analogies because they are integral to intelligence.
It is a little ironic that we have a heading that "Silence is not golden" when the BBC are going to such lengths to protect the identity of one of their male presenters who is alleged to have acted in a seriously inappropriate way. I have no idea who this person is but I have to question why this identity is being withheld. Has it occurred to the police or the BBC that this may not be an entirely isolated event? Is it not at least possible that disclosure will bring forward other complainers?
I suspect that the identity will be fairly well known with 24 hours or so but I would still question why it was withheld at all.
None of which takes anything at all from the excellent points made by @Cyclefree in her thread header, of course.
The individual makes a living from their public profile
Let’s assume the allegations are untrue
If he was named then he would be unable to work again - the innocent would be punished in this circumstance
Catching up with the local news, as medical treatment winds down for a week or two, and apologies if this one has been done.
Ashfield may become a two-way rather than three-way competition for the next General Election, since Jason Zadrozny (Council Leader) has been charged with a whole suite of offences around fraud and tax evasion (going back to 2007) plus a possession of Class A drugs charge, and Tom Hollis (former Deputy Council Leader) has also been charged with offences around failing to declare a pecuniary interest.
(At the last County election this spring, Hollis lost half his vote from approx 40% to under 20% but just beat Labour, and Zadrozny increased his from approx 50% to 63%.)
Interesting that Hollis has already been in court (and found guilty) for two seperate charges (harassment and careless driving) in the last year but still stayed on as a cabinet member.
Unless you get a jail sentence of 3 months or more (including suspended) you can stand as a councillor and remain an elected councillor.
Both were Ashfield Independents I believe
If you note my comment was not about him staying as a councillor - that is for his electorate to decide - but the fact he retained a cabinet position.
"Stopping overnight in one of these small dead towns, we discovered to our displeasure that the only inn was owned and run by English people, and that the garden outside was full of English attracted to live in the area by the cheapness of the property. The only Frenchman among them was a severe alcoholic with an earring, the outward sign of his nonconformity, his desire to drink in public outweighing the disadvantage of having to do it among the English.
What an unattractive people the English have become, how utterly charmless! They are not necessarily bad people in themselves as individuals, but their contemporary culture has turned them into the least appealing people in the world, at least of those known to me."
Spectator bore hates English proles shock. I don't disagree with him necessarily, but how is this interesting journalism? Surely the q is why has rural France let itself be hollowed out like this?
"Stopping overnight in one of these small dead towns, we discovered to our displeasure that the only inn was owned and run by English people, and that the garden outside was full of English attracted to live in the area by the cheapness of the property. The only Frenchman among them was a severe alcoholic with an earring, the outward sign of his nonconformity, his desire to drink in public outweighing the disadvantage of having to do it among the English.
What an unattractive people the English have become, how utterly charmless! They are not necessarily bad people in themselves as individuals, but their contemporary culture has turned them into the least appealing people in the world, at least of those known to me."
Catching up with the local news, as medical treatment winds down for a week or two, and apologies if this one has been done.
Ashfield may become a two-way rather than three-way competition for the next General Election, since Jason Zadrozny (Council Leader) has been charged with a whole suite of offences around fraud and tax evasion (going back to 2007) plus a possession of Class A drugs charge, and Tom Hollis (former Deputy Council Leader) has also been charged with offences around failing to declare a pecuniary interest.
(At the last County election this spring, Hollis lost half his vote from approx 40% to under 20% but just beat Labour, and Zadrozny increased his from approx 50% to 63%.)
Interesting that Hollis has already been in court (and found guilty) for two seperate charges (harassment and careless driving) in the last year but still stayed on as a cabinet member.
Unless you get a jail sentence of 3 months or more (including suspended) you can stand as a councillor and remain an elected councillor.
Both were Ashfield Independents I believe
If you note my comment was not about him staying as a councillor - that is for his electorate to decide - but the fact he retained a cabinet position.
Quite so. A lack of conviction, or a conviction below a disqualification level, would not mean someone should not face other consequences, depending on the situation. People get rightly suspended or fire for things that don't send them to prison.
"Stopping overnight in one of these small dead towns, we discovered to our displeasure that the only inn was owned and run by English people, and that the garden outside was full of English attracted to live in the area by the cheapness of the property. The only Frenchman among them was a severe alcoholic with an earring, the outward sign of his nonconformity, his desire to drink in public outweighing the disadvantage of having to do it among the English.
What an unattractive people the English have become, how utterly charmless! They are not necessarily bad people in themselves as individuals, but their contemporary culture has turned them into the least appealing people in the world, at least of those known to me."
"Stopping overnight in one of these small dead towns, we discovered to our displeasure that the only inn was owned and run by English people, and that the garden outside was full of English attracted to live in the area by the cheapness of the property. The only Frenchman among them was a severe alcoholic with an earring, the outward sign of his nonconformity, his desire to drink in public outweighing the disadvantage of having to do it among the English.
What an unattractive people the English have become, how utterly charmless! They are not necessarily bad people in themselves as individuals, but their contemporary culture has turned them into the least appealing people in the world, at least of those known to me."
Just worked it out I think. Serious serious skadoodles for the BBC, dam on the story breaks tomorrow I reckon.
What surprises me is that, given the level of contact and information the parents appear to have with this indvidual, is that they havent attempted to meet him and have his balls beaten with a hammer and run out of town. I mean if said person did what is claimed, what is he going to do, go to the police?
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
You are quite right. Also, as a goy, I am strictly neutral as to whether the shoah was inimical to jews. Who am I to judge?
Non sequitur alert. And. To my mind, an extremely offensive one.
No, it makes perfect and very obvious sense. It offends you only because of the accuracy with which it skewers you.
No it doesn't. You do this a lot. You produce an analogy that that you think proves your point but doesn't. It is always possible to have two different scenarios where in one case you have to be within a set to appreciate consequences and other scenarios where you can appreciate the consequences when outside of the set. You assume an analogy proves a point. It doesn't. Analogies are useful to clarify the logic of the point only, it doesn't make it conclusive.
That makes no sense to me, it's like a cargo cult invocation of set theory. But I think you are the guy who had an operatic 48 hour wobbly at me shortly after I joined the site for presuming to disagree with you, because you had quote a degree in logic unquote, so definitely bedtime for me.
a) I thought we got over that, but the wobbly was because you were very insensitive simply because I had to leave the site for a few hours to sort out the clearance of my deceased father's house so had to postpone the discussion to which you reacted badly. Some things are more important than PB. I can't believe you don't get that.
b) The degree in logic jibe was because you are quite arrogant about this stuff. I noted you used the same quote ' You are not very good at this are you ' again - very arrogant. That is why you got that comment.
c) In terms of the contents of the discussion you think you can always appreciate something even if you outside of the set. That is clearly not true. There are lots of examples where that isn't true. So giving an analogy which supports your view doesn't mean your view is always right. Analogies have their limitations. Your analogy was very clear cut, but it doesn't prove what @dixiedean posted wasn't also true (admittedly that was a matter of opinion). Nearly all your arguments rely on analogies and they are always very good and can make the logical argument very clear. However that doesn't make it always right though.
In a nut shell one can think of examples where to appreciate something you have to be part of it and other examples where you don't have to be part of it to appreciate it. Because you have given an example of the latter doesn't mean the former doesn't exist.
Can I recommend you read Surfaces and Essences by Douglas Hofstadter and Emmanuel Sander? In it, they argue for the centrality and inescapability of analogy in human reasoning. I think you would be convinced to reword what you've said above in the light of that book. That said, I think you'd correct in what you're getting at. Analogies are sometime inapplicable to a given situation. But you can't rid yourself of analogies because they are integral to intelligence.
Well, quite. A sound analogy is as sound an argument as you are going to find on a May morning. You attack one by showing where it breaks down, not by saying Ooooh, you and your analogies.
And saying "I am right, I have got a degree in logic" is so far beyond pathetic that it is very difficult to know what the response is other than "liar."
I know this is probably a stupid post but I'll try it anyway and see whether any replies ripping it to shreds instantly prove to me beyond reasonable doubt *why* it is stupid.
If (hypothetically) you change most gender-based rights to become entirely sex-based rights instead, but simultaneously make gender recognition/change easier, can you protect biological women's rights whilst also allowing for what seems like entirely reasonable potential for people to choose the gender that best fits them?
e.g. evil trans rapist still has to go to men's prison because sex = male even if self-identifying as female whilst at the same time we are not stopping people who reasonably wish to identify as their preferred gender from quietly living out the lives they are entitled to?
Given that most trans people aren't rapists, it seems reasonable to say we need to find some middle path that clearly protects biological women without demonising everyone who wants to identify differently, regardless of exactly how far they take that transition.
The argument is that in insisting they go to a male prison you are treating them as different to other women so you are not respecting their choice
a) they are different from other women - they are men b) you do not have to respect their choice.
I don’t agree with their position, so difficult for me to argue it. But rendering a choice meaningless will not be seen as a solution - essentially it’s saying “I can’t discriminate against black people but I can discriminate against African Americans”
North Africans are not black.
I am well aware of that. I never mentioned the Maghreb.
"Stopping overnight in one of these small dead towns, we discovered to our displeasure that the only inn was owned and run by English people, and that the garden outside was full of English attracted to live in the area by the cheapness of the property. The only Frenchman among them was a severe alcoholic with an earring, the outward sign of his nonconformity, his desire to drink in public outweighing the disadvantage of having to do it among the English.
What an unattractive people the English have become, how utterly charmless! They are not necessarily bad people in themselves as individuals, but their contemporary culture has turned them into the least appealing people in the world, at least of those known to me."
"Stopping overnight in one of these small dead towns, we discovered to our displeasure that the only inn was owned and run by English people, and that the garden outside was full of English attracted to live in the area by the cheapness of the property. The only Frenchman among them was a severe alcoholic with an earring, the outward sign of his nonconformity, his desire to drink in public outweighing the disadvantage of having to do it among the English.
What an unattractive people the English have become, how utterly charmless! They are not necessarily bad people in themselves as individuals, but their contemporary culture has turned them into the least appealing people in the world, at least of those known to me."
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
You are quite right. Also, as a goy, I am strictly neutral as to whether the shoah was inimical to jews. Who am I to judge?
Non sequitur alert. And. To my mind, an extremely offensive one.
No, it makes perfect and very obvious sense. It offends you only because of the accuracy with which it skewers you.
No it doesn't. You do this a lot. You produce an analogy that that you think proves your point but doesn't. It is always possible to have two different scenarios where in one case you have to be within a set to appreciate consequences and other scenarios where you can appreciate the consequences when outside of the set. You assume an analogy proves a point. It doesn't. Analogies are useful to clarify the logic of the point only, it doesn't make it conclusive.
That makes no sense to me, it's like a cargo cult invocation of set theory. But I think you are the guy who had an operatic 48 hour wobbly at me shortly after I joined the site for presuming to disagree with you, because you had quote a degree in logic unquote, so definitely bedtime for me.
a) I thought we got over that, but the wobbly was because you were very insensitive simply because I had to leave the site for a few hours to sort out the clearance of my deceased father's house so had to postpone the discussion to which you reacted badly. Some things are more important than PB. I can't believe you don't get that.
b) The degree in logic jibe was because you are quite arrogant about this stuff. I noted you used the same quote ' You are not very good at this are you ' again - very arrogant. That is why you got that comment.
c) In terms of the contents of the discussion you think you can always appreciate something even if you outside of the set. That is clearly not true. There are lots of examples where that isn't true. So giving an analogy which supports your view doesn't mean your view is always right. Analogies have their limitations. Your analogy was very clear cut, but it doesn't prove what @dixiedean posted wasn't also true (admittedly that was a matter of opinion). Nearly all your arguments rely on analogies and they are always very good and can make the logical argument very clear. However that doesn't make it always right though.
In a nut shell one can think of examples where to appreciate something you have to be part of it and other examples where you don't have to be part of it to appreciate it. Because you have given an example of the latter doesn't mean the former doesn't exist.
Can I recommend you read Surfaces and Essences by Douglas Hofstadter and Emmanuel Sander? In it, they argue for the centrality and inescapability of analogy in human reasoning. I think you would be convinced to reword what you've said above in the light of that book. That said, I think you'd correct in what you're getting at. Analogies are sometime inapplicable to a given situation. But you can't rid yourself of analogies becauske they are integral to intelligence.
Oh I agree. Wouldn't want to get rid of them. They are very useful in getting clarity. Very useful for thinking outside of the box as well (I can immediately think of one mathematical proof that appeared very complex but proved very simple). @Miklosvar is very good at thinking of them, but as per an earlier discussion and the one with @dixedean what appears to be an excellent analogy is clearly not because you can think of examples that contradict it. There are umpteen scenarios for instance where someone outside of a set can not appreciate the consequence of being in the set so as @dixiedean points out the analogy, although persuasive was flawed.
"Stopping overnight in one of these small dead towns, we discovered to our displeasure that the only inn was owned and run by English people, and that the garden outside was full of English attracted to live in the area by the cheapness of the property. The only Frenchman among them was a severe alcoholic with an earring, the outward sign of his nonconformity, his desire to drink in public outweighing the disadvantage of having to do it among the English.
What an unattractive people the English have become, how utterly charmless! They are not necessarily bad people in themselves as individuals, but their contemporary culture has turned them into the least appealing people in the world, at least of those known to me."
"Stopping overnight in one of these small dead towns, we discovered to our displeasure that the only inn was owned and run by English people, and that the garden outside was full of English attracted to live in the area by the cheapness of the property. The only Frenchman among them was a severe alcoholic with an earring, the outward sign of his nonconformity, his desire to drink in public outweighing the disadvantage of having to do it among the English.
What an unattractive people the English have become, how utterly charmless! They are not necessarily bad people in themselves as individuals, but their contemporary culture has turned them into the least appealing people in the world, at least of those known to me."
"Stopping overnight in one of these small dead towns, we discovered to our displeasure that the only inn was owned and run by English people, and that the garden outside was full of English attracted to live in the area by the cheapness of the property. The only Frenchman among them was a severe alcoholic with an earring, the outward sign of his nonconformity, his desire to drink in public outweighing the disadvantage of having to do it among the English.
What an unattractive people the English have become, how utterly charmless! They are not necessarily bad people in themselves as individuals, but their contemporary culture has turned them into the least appealing people in the world, at least of those known to me."
"Stopping overnight in one of these small dead towns, we discovered to our displeasure that the only inn was owned and run by English people, and that the garden outside was full of English attracted to live in the area by the cheapness of the property. The only Frenchman among them was a severe alcoholic with an earring, the outward sign of his nonconformity, his desire to drink in public outweighing the disadvantage of having to do it among the English.
What an unattractive people the English have become, how utterly charmless! They are not necessarily bad people in themselves as individuals, but their contemporary culture has turned them into the least appealing people in the world, at least of those known to me."
Comments
We can all be wrong.
Are you 100% convinced you are right?
Or is it multi millions of funding from the Evangelical Right in the USA that has made a relatively innocuous niche issue so very controversial?
It would be sexual assault.
There must be a compromise available but organisations like Stonewall and Mermaids are unwilling to even discuss it and simply insist that their view and their way is the only one. They are as much fundamentalists in their own way as the idiots who simply oppose anything to do with transgender rights.
They have been indulged for far too long.
I am left handed. Let's hypothesise an organisation which said that all left handers ahould be burned at the stake. Let's hypothesise another organisation which said: Left handers are absolutely united in saying that right handers should be burned at the stake.
4 questions
is organisation 1 inimical to left handers
is organisation 2 inimical to left handers
can question 1 only be answered by left handers
can question 2 only be answered by left handers
Take your time, and don't trouble to publish your answers because 1. I am going to bed and 2. your conclusion that 2+2 = 5, or 3, is not going to alter my world picture.
You are a poster I respect. I suspect we aren't going to agree here at all.
So I'm going to tap out for fear of boring everyone else.
sleep well.
Not in the slightest.
Nobody is hypothisising burning anyone. No one other than you is suggesting they are.
So let's not.
I am left handed. Let's hypothesise an organisation which said that all left handers ahould be burned at the stake. Let's hypothesise another organisation which said: Left handers are absolutely united in saying that right handers should be burned at the stake.
4 questions
is organisation 1 inimical to left handers
is organisation 2 inimical to left handers
can question 1 only be answered by left handers
can question 2 only be answered by left handers
I don't have any affinity to the team, nor to the place where they play. Indeed, I just had to look that up because I had no idea.
Despite protestations, no one has put forward an alternative to the PM’s scheme. We can no longer simply do nothing.”
People have put forward alternatives. Ken Clarke may find issue with them, but the suggestion we have to stick with Rwanda regardless of any merit because no-one has an alternative is simply wrong.
We should always do nothing unless you can argue your something is better than nothing.
I suspect that the identity will be fairly well known with 24 hours or so but I would still question why it was withheld at all.
None of which takes anything at all from the excellent points made by @Cyclefree in her thread header, of course.
Both were Ashfield Independents I believe
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66148321
Cue rivetting discussion about "decimating."
Even as I said earlier working out which presenters are not doing their usual slots may by process of elimination suggest who may have been suspended
I appreciate your posts. They are always sensibly reasoned, even if I don't agree.
And if I always agreed it would be pointless coming here anyways. It'd be like buying the Daily Mail or Guardian every day.
I am left handed. Let's hypothesise an organisation which said that all left handers ahould be burned at the stake. Let's hypothesise another organisation which said: Left handers are absolutely united in saying that right handers should be burned at the stake.
4 questions
is organisation 1 inimical to left handers
is organisation 2 inimical to left handers
can question 1 only be answered by left handers
can question 2 only be answered by left handers
The careless driving charge is imo really Dangerous. He was going down the main traffic calmed shopping street at 65mph (estimate by unmarked police car following), then pulled into a petrol station, then reversed into the police car. This street:
https://tinyurl.com/hoonhollis
It's very Ashfield that it was after "a night out at the bingo", which perhaps also relates to Hollis' background being Labour. Lib Dems and Ashfield Indies don't typically do bingo, to me.
The harassment was quite a vicious little panto. He phone up 999, then started shouting things like 'keep away from me with that machete' down the phone.
Separately, there's other stuff in the past. This one in 2015 seems quite comical, but he was found guilty of assault:
https://www.chad.co.uk/news/ashfield-councillors-street-assault-on-political-rival-2198539
I'm not.
Others say don't hate nothing at all except hatred.
But I'll take your advice.....
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/06/rwanda-is-not-a-safe-country-for-refugees
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/have-the-tories-given-up/
Patrick O'Flynn reckons the Tories should let rip on this before the start of the summer recess. I would say he doesn't sufficiently understand the time aspect, but that's not necessarily true because one of his premises is that Labour are building a good weapon with the notion that "The Tories have given up", i.e. that a Labour majority is inevitable - and of course in war it's the enemy that lays down the law to you.
But I still think the Tories will bide their time. It's ideal for them that the Supreme Court decision is due some time around December IIRC.
This is how they win the election.
Son of 1992 or son of 1997 is a silly question but it can be made a bit more sensible by asking whether Starmer seems more like Kinnock or Blair and then the answer is obvious.
2024 won't be much like any election that took place before the Brexit referendum.
No. I don't approve of the tyranny of the majority.
Do you?
At least if the Tories lose this time Labour also then have to deal with the economic problems now
You can make that case without being trans.
Do you support the idea of "tyranny of the majority"?
Yes: 56%
No: 32%
DK: 12%
Statistician's note: the Noes were rounded after the survey and processed into a rehabilitation facility
You are surprised that the reaction to the legal disasters in naming people in earlier cases has resulted in a new policy? Which is futile, stupid and probably makes things worse?
Perhaps I could interest you in some brand new, zero mileage, ferries?
b) The degree in logic jibe was because you are quite arrogant about this stuff. I noted you used the same quote ' You are not very good at this are you ' again - very arrogant. That is why you got that comment.
c) In terms of the contents of the discussion you think you can always appreciate something even if you outside of the set. That is clearly not true. There are lots of examples where that isn't true. So giving an analogy which supports your view doesn't mean your view is always right. Analogies have their limitations. Your analogy was very clear cut, but it doesn't prove what @dixiedean posted wasn't also true (even though that was just his opinion). Nearly all your arguments rely on analogies and they are always very good and can make the logical argument very clear. However that doesn't make it always right though.
In a nut shell one can think of examples where to appreciate something you have to be part of it and other examples where you don't have to be part of it to appreciate it. Because you have given an example of the latter doesn't mean the former doesn't exist.
Theodore Dalrymple on the English in France.
"Stopping overnight in one of these small dead towns, we discovered to our displeasure that the only inn was owned and run by English people, and that the garden outside was full of English attracted to live in the area by the cheapness of the property. The only Frenchman among them was a severe alcoholic with an earring, the outward sign of his nonconformity, his desire to drink in public outweighing the disadvantage of having to do it among the English.
What an unattractive people the English have become, how utterly charmless! They are not necessarily bad people in themselves as individuals, but their contemporary culture has turned them into the least appealing people in the world, at least of those known to me."
https://www.takimag.com/article/all-the-charm-of-hyenas/
@Richard_Tyndall . Thank you for the mention regarding my comment stream. I shall have to write it out as an article and slap it on Substack or something
@Cyclefree: a good article, although it does show you at your best and worst. Good, well-written, too long, nothing to do with betting (although obviously about politics in this case, so there's that)
@ydoethur . Thank you for the origin of the "reaction always survives" quote, although could you be so kind as to indicate *which* journal called "Justice" you were referring to plz?
@rcs1000. You banned @Leon? Is this a ban ban, or will we see a @Noel or @Elon boasting of the alphaness of his sagging frog-shaped body within the next 48hrs?
@all with respect to the trans issue, there is one group of people who believe there are no circumstances in which a man can legally be a woman, and another group who believe that there are. It is the extent to which the former is believed, and the extent to which the latter is believed, that is the schwerpunkt (sp?) of the argument. Until this is understood, all discussion is peripheral.
@all with respect to the BBC presenter, I prefer to wait until formal identification. We can speculate all day, but without evidence it's silly.
If anybody raises any other issues that need my supernal wisdom, I shall bless you with my reckons as they arise
That said, I think you'd correct in what you're getting at. Analogies are sometime inapplicable to a given situation. But you can't rid yourself of analogies because they are integral to intelligence.
Let’s assume the allegations are untrue
If he was named then he would be unable to work again - the innocent would be punished in this circumstance
Thats a no.
And saying "I am right, I have got a degree in logic" is so far beyond pathetic that it is very difficult to know what the response is other than "liar."
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1678144544636895235?s=20
I'd be interested to hear her thoughts on Abigail Shrier's little book -- which I suppose I should order (though not from Amazon).
Lab 46.5%
Con 26.4%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election