February 20, 20187 yr Author Do you still support him for PM? You are taking this thread much too seriously. Let's just say there are others I think would make worse PM's than him... [i suppose you're now going to ask me who.] Yes, in 2004 alone he wrote about gay issues 104 times. His gross opinions are well-known. Having not read those articles, how can I be expected to comment on them?
February 20, 20187 yr You are taking this thread much too seriously. Let's just say there are others I think would make worse PM's than him... [i suppose you're now going to ask me who.] Having not read those articles, how can I be expected to comment on them? Yah of course there are hypothetical worsts - always. But that doesn't make hi any better as a candidate.
February 20, 20187 yr Author Yah of course there are hypothetical worsts - always. But that doesn't make hi any better as a candidate. What reason do you ascribe his homophobia to? Edited February 20, 20187 yr by vidcapper
February 20, 20187 yr What reason do you ascribe his homophobia to? Closed-minded dinosaur. There can be many reasons - the most common is some for of latent homosexuality, or just absolute rigid thinking/ brainwashing, etc. Doesn't matter. What matters is he IS a huge homophobe and not fit for an egalitarian society.
February 20, 20187 yr Having not read those articles, how can I be expected to comment on them? So what did you base your suggestion on?
February 21, 20187 yr Author So what did you base your suggestion on? Which suggestion do you refer to - I have made several in this discussion?
February 21, 20187 yr Author Closed-minded dinosaur. There can be many reasons - the most common is some for of latent homosexuality, or just absolute rigid thinking/ brainwashing, etc. Doesn't matter. What matters is he IS a huge homophobe and not fit for an egalitarian society. In America, more so than Britain, religious belief is a factor, given that certain biblical passages can be interpreted as condemning homosexuality... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality As an atheist myself, I give anything the Bible says very little credence. I suspect that for many though, it is the revulsion over the idea of anal sex that is the driving force of their homophobia. On a seperate issue, what does 'not fit for an egalitarian society' actually mean? It's not like you can exclude someone from society, just for expressing an opinion, however offensive it might be to some. :thinking:
February 21, 20187 yr Which suggestion do you refer to - I have made several in this discussion? The idea of Richard Littlejohn being a good alternative PM.
February 21, 20187 yr Author The idea of Richard Littlejohn being a good alternative PM. Ah, OK - that makes sense.
February 27, 20187 yr Author Anything else? What else did you have in mind? :unsure: I'm sure no=one here will be surprised if I tell you I appreciated Littlejohn's latest article (even if certain aspects of it gave me pause)... RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: 'Jeremy Corbyn's shameless use of the rich man's libel law'
February 27, 20187 yr Author Why should Corbyn just sit back and let an opponent libel him? Because, according to the article, that's not the traditional way MP's resolve such matters. I guess a couple of hundred years ago, it would be duelling pistols... :P
February 27, 20187 yr The only shameless thing is McCarthy era slurs. Every Tory and Tory press that printed/ repeated those anti-democratic slurs should be in court. It's like living in Russia/ NK at the moment.
February 27, 20187 yr In America, more so than Britain, religious belief is a factor, given that certain biblical passages can be interpreted as condemning homosexuality... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality As an atheist myself, I give anything the Bible says very little credence. I suspect that for many though, it is the revulsion over the idea of anal sex that is the driving force of their homophobia. On a seperate issue, what does 'not fit for an egalitarian society' actually mean? It's not like you can exclude someone from society, just for expressing an opinion, however offensive it might be to some. :thinking: Racism and homophobia are vile no matter the reason. We exclude people for racism. The same should go for homophobia. Completely illogical. To disagree with black people/ with ginger people/ with gay people literally makes no sense. 'I disagree with you because you were born with blue eyes. I disagree with that.' Mm, okayyy?
February 28, 20187 yr Author Racism and homophobia are vile no matter the reason. I can't disagree with that. We exclude people for racism. The same should go for homophobia.If they are just trolling, definitely - but otherwise, shouldn't they have the chance to defend themselves against possible misinterpretation? Completely illogical. To disagree with black people/ with ginger people/ with gay people literally makes no sense. 'I disagree with you because you were born with blue eyes. I disagree with that.' Mm, okayyy? It would be illogical (and heinous) if that were the *only* reason for disagreement, yes - but I hope you don't believe that people should be immune from criticism/challenge simply because they are part of a minority group?
March 1, 20187 yr Because, according to the article, that's not the traditional way MP's resolve such matters. I guess a couple of hundred years ago, it would be duelling pistols... :P It depends on the scale of the libel. This was a pretty extreme case, so I don't blame him for taking legal action. Don't forget John Major successfully pursued a libel action over an allegation he had had an affair. We eventually found out that the thing the magazine in question got wrong was the identity of the woman involved.
March 1, 20187 yr Author It depends on the scale of the libel. This was a pretty extreme case, so I don't blame him for taking legal action. Don't forget John Major successfully pursued a libel action over an allegation he had had an affair. We eventually found out that the thing the magazine in question got wrong was the identity of the woman involved. makes you wonder how many other libel cases over the years have been won, only for history to prove the allegations were actually true after all...?
March 1, 20187 yr makes you wonder how many other libel cases over the years have been won, only for history to prove the allegations were actually true after all...? That just underlines a major flaw with the justices system in general, namely money. When Peter Carter-Ruck was alive he had a reputation as the best libel lawyer in the UK. Whatever side managed to secure his services in a high-profile libel case usually won. That cannot be healthy in a democracy.
March 1, 20187 yr Author That just underlines a major flaw with the justices system in general, namely money. When Peter Carter-Ruck was alive he had a reputation as the best libel lawyer in the UK. Whatever side managed to secure his services in a high-profile libel case usually won. That cannot be healthy in a democracy. Not to mention the whole issue of super-injunctions...
Create an account or sign in to comment