[Football] Jacob Rees-Mogg.

[The Clamp]

Like falling for a sinister looking black and white with hints of red poster.

I wasn't particularly referring to that poster. More the overall impression that some gullible folks believe he is a straight talker. He's nothing of the sort.

 

[dingodan]

I wasn't particularly referring to that poster. More the overall impression that some gullible folks believe he is a straight talker. He's nothing of the sort.

Yes he is, and if you can't see that then you're probably just not a straight listener.

 

[topbanana36]

John McDonnell: I want to be in a situation where no Tory can show their face anywhere without being challenged by direct action.

Bullying. Sexism. Anti-Semitism. Harassment induced resignations. This is John McDonnell's kinder, gentler politics. Found on twitter. Just about says it all.

 

[Ernest]

John McDonnell: I want to be in a situation where no Tory can show their face anywhere without being challenged by direct action.

Bullying. Sexism. Anti-Semitism. Harassment induced resignations. This is John McDonnell's kinder, gentler politics. Found on twitter. Just about says it all.

#snowflake

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

Isn’t it depressing that our politicians have been so mediocre for such a long time that a politician saying whatever the **** he wants- no matter how offensive- results in him being seen as a “legend” for simply “not lying”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pavilionaire]

In many ways Jacob Rees-Mogg would be the logical next leader:

1. Committed to hard Brexit which - logically - is the only place Theresa May can go but he'll do it better than her.
2. He'll be popular with UKIP voters, many of which have yet to find a true home after their party's meltdown.
3. Less likely to make gaffes than, say, Boris.
4. He has charisma and is good for a quote - gold dust in the modern age of social media, the complete opposite of May.
5. A toff - like Osborne, Cameron and Boris - the Tories love a toff as it pisses off the working classes.

 

[beorhthelm]

John McDonnell: I want to be in a situation where no Tory can show their face anywhere without being challenged by direct action.

Bullying. Sexism. Anti-Semitism. Harassment induced resignations. This is John McDonnell's kinder, gentler politics. Found on twitter. Just about says it all.

this has always been the way of the hard left (or right), shut down discussion, bully people to your point of view. why unions become unpopular once the closed shops went.

 

[dingodan]

#snowflake

 

[Hugo Rune]

Rees-Mogg: A casting director’s dream when looking for a high ranking SS officer for a WW2 movie. I suspect JR-M is a more than adequate actor.

He also breeds like a rabbit for some reason?

 

[The Clamp]

Yes he is, and if you can't see that then you're probably just not a straight listener.

Yeah right.

 

[dingodan]

Yeah right.

You're.

 

[btnbelle]

Labour and the Tories moving out to the left and right,seem to be encouraging some citizens to be less tolerant and more prone to violence. IMO we are lucky to be able to speak freely and be able to hear the views of everyone whether we agree or not.

The country is crying out for a leader to unite us all, behind a fair and affordable way forward. Someone who can instill the values of respect for all. Jacob Rees Mogg isn't that man with his views but he has every right to voice them.

Whatever happened to disagreeing with another person and walking away satisfied that your own values are still valid.

 

[larus]

It amazes me how nasty some people can get towards others they simply disagree politically with.

Very sad, but you're right, what they say in those cases says far more about them than it does about those who they think they are speaking about.

On your first point, I know this is a sensitive area of argument, but can you not see that people who are against abortion view it as taking a human life, and can't see doing that as being an acceptable solution, even to the worst of situations. Without wanting to start a debate about the issue, is it really fair to say that someone who sees things that way, i.e. it's taking a life and taking a life is wrong even in the most tragic of situations, is a deranged extremist? Because, while people disagree on whether it's a human life, most people agree that taking a human life is wrong, don't they?

On your second point,

I always find your replies very measured and calm. No vitriol or abusive language. Shame that there’s not more posts like yours on here.

Regarding your comments on JRM and abortion. This is the important thing, he feels that life is created at conception (and, if you think about it, he is right).

Hypothetical question regarding a previous posters statement on abortion due to rape/incest. A woman is married but gets raped by a stranger. She conceives and doesn’t know if the father is her husband or the rapist. Has the child, but at birth it’s clear that it’s not the husbands. Would those that support abortion (in cases of rape/incest) support the killing of the baby. If not, then that is in effect the same view as JRM. He view the baby as a life from conception and not birth.

Personally, I feel these decisions are for the mother (and father where appropriate) and not for other people. Why should I have my views impact someone else’s life?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I always find your replies very measured and calm. No vitriol or abusive language. Shame that there’s not more posts like yours on here.

Regarding your comments on JRM and abortion. This is the important thing, he feels that life is created at conception (and, if you think about it, he is right).

Hypothetical question regarding a previous posters statement on abortion due to rape/incest. A woman is married but gets raped by a stranger. She conceives and doesn’t know if the father is her husband or the rapist. Has the child, but at birth it’s clear that it’s not the husbands. Would those that support abortion (in cases of rape/incest) support the killing of the baby. If not, then that is in effect the same view as JRM. He view the baby as a life from conception and not birth.

Personally, I feel these decisions are for the mother (and father where appropriate) and not for other people. Why should I have my views impact someone else’s life?

Slightly off topic, but why aren't women automatically given the morning after pill, when reporting a rape? Having said that, stranger rape is rare, as it's more likely to be 'date' rape, and the woman doesn't always report it straightaway.

 

[larus]

Slightly off topic, but why aren't women automatically given the morning after pill, when reporting a rape? Having said that, stranger rape is rare, as it's more likely to be 'date' rape, and the woman doesn't always report it straightaway.

I guess you’re right - stranger rape is probably quite rare (hopefully). Modern drugs have led to date rape and maybe some women aren’t aware. Very difficult subject to discuss, as I feel as though the crime of rape has been expanded to include intercouse when consent was not explicitly given. One example is the Julian Assange rape claims. One of the women had spent the night in bed with him and woke up to find him inside her. But they’d already had sex the previous night. How can that be rape?

Anyway, we’re drifted off from the JRM bashing

 

[dingodan]

No, I think it is perfectly justified. It is a stain on the human race that, in this day and age when we should know better, that a person has been so ill educated that he can hold the reprehensible views he does. Not only that but enough people agree with him to elect him as those representitive.
It is a stain on us all. It shows we have failed in education, we have failed in teaching morals and we have failed to notice and improve.

Why do you feel his is ill educated? I guess his views are not the same as your views, but in what way does that make him ill educated?

Which of his views are reprehensible? Again, you aren't just saying that you don't agree with him, you are implying that he is a bad person, elaborate?

 

[sjamesb3466]

On your first point, I know this is a sensitive area of argument, but can you not see that people who are against abortion view it as taking a human life, and can't see doing that as being an acceptable solution, even to the worst of situations. Without wanting to start a debate about the issue, is it really fair to say that someone who sees things that way, i.e. it's taking a life and taking a life is wrong even in the most tragic of situations, is a deranged extremist? Because, while people disagree on whether it's a human life, most people agree that taking a human life is wrong, don't they?

On your second point,

Thank you for your measured response.

I do believe JRM to be a religious extremist because A. He is religious and B. Holds extreme religious views that are not in keeping with the vast majority of society (therefore at the extremes). If he was against abortion in all but the most extreme cases I could disagree with him but cut him some slack however his belief that this is wrong even if someone was for example, raped by their own father, is extremist. If it was a muslim person holding such views most people would call them a religious extremist so I see no difference because he is a Christian. If the argument is based on there never being an acceptable reason for taking another human life how come JRM has consistently voted in favour of UK military intervention oversea's and for the UK to replace Trident with a new nuclear missile program (amongst other examples). I'm not saying those particular decisions are wrong but his pro-life argument just doesn't hold water when you also promote actions that are likely to end in human fatalities.

What really upset's me with pro-life (despise that name by the way as who is actually pro-death?) supporters is that they are trying to impose their own views, often religious, onto other people and prevent them from having a choice/making their own decisions. If someone disagree's with abortion then it is their right not to have that abortion, but why they want to prevent others from doing so (when it's nothing to do with them) is wrong in my opinion.

 

[larus]

Thank you for your measured response.

I do believe JRM to be a religious extremist because A. He is religious and B. Holds extreme religious views that are not in keeping with the vast majority of society (therefore at the extremes). If he was against abortion in all but the most extreme cases I could disagree with him but cut him some slack however his belief that this is wrong even if someone was for example, raped by their own father, is extremist. If it was a muslim person holding such views most people would call them a religious extremist so I see no difference because he is a Christian. If the argument is based on there never being an acceptable reason for taking another human life how come JRM has consistently voted in favour of UK military intervention oversea's and for the UK to replace Trident with a new nuclear missile program (amongst other examples). I'm not saying those particular decisions are wrong but his pro-life argument just doesn't hold water when you also promote actions that are likely to end in human fatalities.

What really upset's me with pro-life (despise that name by the way as who is actually pro-death?) supporters is that they are trying to impose their own views, often religious, onto other people and prevent them from having a choice/making their own decisions. If someone disagree's with abortion then it is their right not to have that abortion, but why they want to prevent others from doing so (when it's nothing to do with them) is wrong in my opinion.

And if you have listened to his interviews he accepts that the law is not going to change and therefore, he is not trying to impose his views on others. He is a Catholic and believes in the teachings of the Catholic Church. I find that strange as there is no god; it’s been made up to control people IMO.

He is not extremist; lots of Catholics (and others) will have this view. He’s not going out of his way to impose his views on others;’ he’s not rissuing a rallying call for action is he. He has expressed his own opinion on a sensitive topic, very quell aware that it would be contentious, but he has been honest.

Yet there are still those who are so blinkered who want to castigate him as ‘extremist’ for his own personal views.

Extremism to me is taking action to enforce your views on others.

 

[severnside gull]

Aaah. JRM.
A man who every day proves that he has no logical place in British society in the 21st century.

 

[dingodan]

Thank you for your measured response.

I do believe JRM to be a religious extremist because A. He is religious and B. Holds extreme religious views that are not in keeping with the vast majority of society (therefore at the extremes). If he was against abortion in all but the most extreme cases I could disagree with him but cut him some slack however his belief that this is wrong even if someone was for example, raped by their own father, is extremist. If it was a muslim person holding such views most people would call them a religious extremist so I see no difference because he is a Christian. If the argument is based on there never being an acceptable reason for taking another human life how come JRM has consistently voted in favour of UK military intervention oversea's and for the UK to replace Trident with a new nuclear missile program (amongst other examples). I'm not saying those particular decisions are wrong but his pro-life argument just doesn't hold water when you also promote actions that are likely to end in human fatalities.

What really upset's me with pro-life (despise that name by the way as who is actually pro-death?) supporters is that they are trying to impose their own views, often religious, onto other people and prevent them from having a choice/making their own decisions. If someone disagree's with abortion then it is their right not to have that abortion, but why they want to prevent others from doing so (when it's nothing to do with them) is wrong in my opinion.

There are a couple of flaws with your reasoning. His religious view in this context is that the commandment "Thou shall not kill" is important and non negotiable. This is entirely in keeping with the views of the majority of the society, our society has law as a crucial foundation, and it's against the law to kill. Where society and JRM differ is in whether on not abortion is killing, but that is a scientific and factual distinction, it's not a moral one. On the moral question (is it wrong to kill?) everyone agrees (even you I would have thought?).

I agree strongly with the principle that people should be able to live their lives as they chose, and make decisions for themselves. In almost all cases I am opposed to telling others how to live or being told how to live myself.

However the protection of life is a bit different though, if you accept the premise that abortion is the taking of a life.

We don't live in a society which says if you don't agree with killing then don't kill, but don't stop others from doing it.