[Siderite]

The Republicans aren’t too keen on preserving the life of the mother, as recent cases show.

[Siderite]

billpuntonsghost wrote:

…to kill their own child ?

Whoosh

[Siderite]

Well, we do know the ‘genuine Christians’ don’t care about democratic rights.

[Siderite]

I do feel discomfort here. I can see where you are coming from, in that there are those who seem to hold some horrid opinions and are attracted to these parties without consideration or empathy for others. However, and it’s a large however (for Bucks or anyone wanting to seize on my second sentence for evidence I am someone out to get them), I find it too judgemental. Surely it’s possible to see that those Christians who do can do so out of what they see as good intentions and they think this is the path to betterment for all. It is possible for someone to hold different opinions in good intent, but be mistaken or deluded (not delusional!).

Sure, there are some who may well be small minded and bigoted. Often the defenders against this position ignore many who are and pretend everyone is approaching their right wing stance in good intent. However, this is too broad and discounts many Christians who aren’t the jingoistic and bigoted types. In my opinion at least.

[Siderite]

Bucks often quotes polling data when it suits him.

Contrary to popular opinion among some, polling data isn’t that unreflective. It’s tough in tight races, but Trump and Brexit were all within the margin of possibility. It’s here when careful consideration must be made. When there are huge gaps it’s unlikely to be drastic, so any Tory hoping that the current -25 gap between Labour and Tory is false because “we can’t trust polls” or whatever else (I know party voting intention isn’t the focus of this thread) is only deluding themselves. Just as Corbynites were when Labour was suffering massively under his leadership, and it’s just as laughable and pitiable to see such desperate arguments from others.

I trust polls more than ‘gut feelings’ of the very ‘measured’ people.

[Siderite]

I think he said it was an interview with BBC radio 4 at the time.

[Siderite]

Some of the environmentalist claims about planet ending are ludicrous. However, what matters is the scientific literature, not XR claims, for the science, and the predictions made by Hanson and others are what’s been witnessed. The consequences are stark for humanity, but not planet ending. That should be enough for action.

That’s all I will say, because I am not getting sucked into an endless debate, with little attempt to represent it honestly.

Also, by saying simplistic above, I am not arguing that things like domestic abuse and education weren’t detrimental. It’s that the choice was between two options with negative outcomes and I am sceptical of claims about high excess deaths coming from other means besides covid. Deaths are quite high now in covid waves. I don’t think it’s the lockdowns causing them.

[Siderite]

Abuse = Me disagreeing with you or telling you to stop twisting my words. At most some sarcasm, and we can’t have that, because we can’t have us lesser mortals poking fun at the great one.

The fact you acknowledge that the first lockdown was necessary kinda undermines your point before, because that is demonstrably contradictory.

I think your post is still too simplistic, but I can’t be bothered to go into why, because you’d just carry on twisting and gaslighting, as you always do. You have had enough chances and I am bored of it.

I don’t know why you’re trying to shoehorn your other obsession in, except for trying to reel in a pointless debate where you can twist words, deliberately antagonise and gaslight, before playing the victim again.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Heath

[Siderite]

2 users thanked author for this post.

TwoWrights, Iron-awe

[Siderite]

I seem to remember you doing a mea culpa over lockdowns. Now you have switched again.

It may be that lockdowns could be judged to be worse than the alternative. However, we weren’t privileged with hindsight and a lot of the arguments against them from the time were not great. Suffice to say, I can see arguments for both sides, but will go easy due to the unprecedented nature of it. No point going into this with you though, because there’s no chance you’d respect my opinion or understand a complex argument. It would just be twisted to me saying lockdowns are perfect or something to suit your agenda against anyone to the left of you.

[Siderite]

It’s just a fluff piece on a few famous men using their position to highlight an issue. If William was famous for something else this piece would likely still be run.

[Siderite]

Try img photoaddress.com /img, using square brackets on the imgs.

[Siderite]

I wonder how long Musk will last in his vanity stint.

[Siderite]

What makes them a woman? Because they say they are? Ludicrous. The law says transgender people have a right to be treated fairly and can access some female spaces post-GRA. Transactivists claim trans women are women based on what they say, hence anyone saying they are a gender are that gender. This creates obvious issues, because sex is reality, and anyone arguing otherwise is bonkers. It affects women, who have been historically oppressed by men, but we have to pretend they’re more privileged than some men to avoid hurt feelings. It’s ridiculous.

Women have a right to single sexed spaces Why is it bigoted because some men have hurt feelings? Why isn’t it bigoted of you to not care about women being placed at greater risk? You have shown no care about that. The only risk of single sex spaces remaining are hurt feelings from trans identified men. The risk for women is an increase in sexual harassment and assault*, as figures show in gender neutral spaces (which allowing men in effectively does) and girls skipping toilets in school.

*None of this means I think every or the majority are sexual predators.

MRA = men’s rights activist/activism. Your arguments, as most transactivist arguments, sound exactly like theirs. Everything is about the ‘rights’ of males and women’s concerns are ‘dogwhistles’ and how it’s ‘demonising’ to acknowledge that men pose a risk to women. There’s no care or thought as to women, everything is ‘bigoted’ because men might have hurt feelings or be critiqued.

There’s a reason why suffragists saw single spaced toilets as a secondary goal of theirs. There’s a reason why Oxfam and Amnesty International campaign for women’s toilets in other countries (e.g. India). It’s because this makes women safer and reduces sexual crimes against them. It’s because men pose a risk to women, and the idea the risk dissipates the moment a man says they identify as a woman is laughable. No-one can seriously think that the risk to women can only come from men who identify as men, and that something as spurious as claimed identity changes this risk.

I am losing no sleep over being called a bigot for not caring about a lesser worry in an obvious conflict in rights claims. One of which is very spurious indeed.

[Siderite]

Oh, I guess that makes it ok then. So long as some men are less likely than other men, we can just tear up safeguards.

Women are a victimised group too, by men (including from those who identify as women). Why is it progressive to ignore their concerns in favour of trans identified men? They have a lot more to lose from letting go of their spaces. But, who cares? Male feelings are at stake.

The idea that I am ‘demonising’ men because I point out they pose a risk to women is a right wing, MRA argument.

[Siderite]

[Siderite]

They are promoted because they think people are interested.

[Siderite]

Police states went a lot further than that.

[Siderite]

Being the Royal Family they attract attention.

[Siderite]

These things seem to be backsliding, but I am not sure about a ‘police state.’ We’re not anywhere near that stage. Case in point being that yourself and bpg can talk of such without repercussion.

[Siderite]

Well, Charles is hosting. It’s standard news practice to report on such when it’s a national figure doing something like this.

[Siderite]

Siderite wrote:

If no-one is suggesting they should be mistreated, <strong class=”d4pbbc-bold”>why did you take exception to my point which was not related to the arguments about why they’re here?

Corrected

[Siderite]

Always the victim, it’s never your fault.

I have already said once that I wasn’t referring to why they’re coming here. The very point you took exception to was not linked with that. As such I was left with four possibilities, which I laid out above. That you thought it was ridiculous to call these people human, that they should be treated better, that you misunderstood me or are twisting words to suit an agenda. There are no other possibilities.

If no-one is suggesting they should be mistreated, why did you take exception to my point which was not related to this?

I don’t think people with concerns about people coming over in dinghies are inherently racist or xenophobic, I have not gone into this, so why are you trying to twist words, yet again? All you are doing is showing why I can’t be bothered to. If I do, there is no chance you’d accurately represent my views. You can’t even claim about me not understanding the problem, because I haven’t given an opinion on it. Your exception to me wasn’t to do with why the problem exists, it was solely due to Braverman’s appalling treatment of them (and Patel’s etc). No arguments about this, human traffickers or whatever justifies how they have been treated while here.

The only reason I have reacted angrily is because you speak to others as if they’re beneath you. The fact is that you took exception to me saying these people should be treated better, with no mention of the issues over why they’re coming here. If you’re taking exception to this, I am left with no other option in thinking you disagree with them being treated humanely or you have made a mistake. Which is ok, I won’t think badly of an error. I do when you twist my words and make wild accusations about my own opinions.

[Siderite]

I love how Bucks makes comments about impossibility of debate, when his own straw manning, word twisting and putting words into others’ mouths makes it impossible to have any kind of sensible debate with him, frankly.

There is a reason I haven’t made any comment on responsibility of migrants coming here, besides it being irrelevant to my criticism of how humans have been treated while on these shores. It’s because there’s not a cat in Hell’s chance Bucks will accurately represent my views. It will be more straw manning and twisting, as can be seen above with bringing this part up in a separate point and accusations of how others must think the UK to be horrible as a whole because there’s an element to critique. It’s frankly impossible to debate with someone who refuses to understand what you’re saying and makes out you’re some straw man.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Heath, TwoWrights, Iron-awe

[Siderite]

Siderite wrote:

that the home secretary has allowed when she has other options is appalling.

Corrected

[Siderite]

Always the victim, it’s never your fault.

Yes, Bucks, I am missing the point that migrants and refugees shouldn’t be treated humanely. I made no comment on France in my post you took exception to. It was solely about people being crammed into horrible conditions with disease. Regardless of whether they have a right to be here, that the home secretary has allowed when she has other options.

Yes, Bucks, it’s self-righteous to care about how people are treated. The real issue is criticising those who call them invaders or think places with diphtheria are too good for the likes of them. The real problem is being critical of themand hurting their precious feelings.

Frankly, I am not missing the point, because of why they are here or France’s responsibility has sod all to do with my original point. We should be treating them humanely, regardless.

I could go into this, but it’s pointless, because you will only misrepresent and gaslight, as you have demonstrated yet again.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Heath, Deereyme66

[Siderite]

My comment wasn’t about the UK being horrible or whatever. I don’t know why you think I give a damn about being called a usual suspect by you, since you display the very behaviour you criticise others for.

You quite clearly took exception to me making what should be an inane comment about how these people have been treated badly. If you found my comment ridiculous it means you think it’s ridiculous to criticise humans living in squalor, when it’s preventable, it’s ridiculous to call them human, you misunderstood my intention or are twisting my words yet again. There are no other possibilities.

I wasn’t saying anyone arguing against immigration is evil, xenophobic, racist or whatever straw man you want to throw at me. I was making a specific point about the treatment of people who have crossed the channel once arrived. Like it or not, they should be treated humanely.

If you make a comment which makes it seem like you think it’s ridiculous to say humans should be treated humanely, then don’t start complaining when my opinion is not positive and I make scathing comments. I couldn’t give a damn about being politically correct about someone who told me it’s ridiculous to be concerned about welfare of humans. It could be you misunderstanding, but you can’t blame someone for calling you out for what is a deeply inhumane implication; that it’s ridiculous to want acceptable living standards for refugees, migrants or whoever.

None of this means I think the UK is horrible or beyond redemption. I just think we can treat these people better and that this is a stain on our record. I have gone through wh the UK has some great points previously. I am not doing so again, because someone who has to demonise others remotely to the left of Reagan understands (and probably won’t anyway, because it doesn’t suit their agenda).

Stop moaning that people have a different opinion to you. I am allowed to criticise Braverman’s disgusting language and lack of care to others. This is not the real crime. Disregard to others and how they live is.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Heath

[Siderite]

The net zero argument is odd given the cost of natural gas, which has always been reliant on Russia, and their politicisation of gas usage started before the invasion of Ukraine. It would have been mitigated if Germany and others didn’t hinder nuclear. The problem is low energy security, with over-reliance on gas.

Given gas use is at highs in many countries, it’s odd to suggest that the cause is relying too much on other sources.

[Siderite]

There’s the whatabout.

[Siderite]

Yes, Bucks, it’s ridiculous to complain about people with preventable diseases in terrible conditions.

Perhaps I should call them invading hordes, and you might not call critics ridiculous.

I wasn’t aware that the French were responsible for how people are treated in the UK.

I made no comment on this other than how they are being treated, but please jump to assumptions based on your straw men. It shows your tribal nature and why it’s pointless me bothering to give a fuller answer.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Heath

[Author]

Posts