 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: akenaton Date: 17 Sep 15 - 06:55 PM It is no business of you or society to abuse others for holding a faith or teaching their children why they think that faith is important and beneficial. Socialism has failed almost everywhere due to extreme opposition from capitalist interests, but I still think that socialism can be made to work just as Joe thinks the Christian religion can make a better society.....and I have tried to instil socialist ideas into my children. That is not lying or any kind of abuse, it is the advancement of political....or religious theory. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: Steve Shaw Date: 17 Sep 15 - 07:01 PM "It is no business of you or society to abuse others for holding a faith or teaching their children why they think that faith is important and beneficial." I don't. The trouble with you is that you either can't or won't read. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: Steve Shaw Date: 17 Sep 15 - 07:08 PM "However in the UK the folk music world does tend to be left leaning and here in Scotland it is left leaning and Yes leaning. Fair point of course is that Scotland is left of centre leaning so the folk music world is firstly likely to mirror that - but it seems more uniformly left than society in general. I simply can't think of a Scottish folk singer who is openly in favour of the Tories and the union." An interesting point. I post on the Gaughan forum a fair bit, where political discussion is encouraged and where any point of view at all falling short of actual bigotry is fiercely defended. Right-wing opinions expressed there are about as common as rocking-horse shit! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: akenaton Date: 17 Sep 15 - 07:11 PM And who decides what is actual bigotry? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: akenaton Date: 17 Sep 15 - 07:15 PM Not so long ago discussing homosexuality or immigration was considered bigotry by most of the UK Mudcat contributors. Thankfully most of the seriously intolerant have been weeded out, leaving only a small group of dark shadows. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 17 Sep 15 - 07:19 PM Shimrod says: You cannot elevate a 'belief' to a 'truth' unless you can back up your belief with evidence. I think I can agree with that...to a point. But as I said above, I look on "belief" as a context for exploration, not as "truth." In many ways, "truth" is irrelevant to me because I find it limiting. I come from a religious tradition which I find to be of value to me - it's where I come from. However, I feel free (and obliged) to explore the mysteries of life also from a non-theistic perspective. Steve Shaw: Thanks. I think we understand (and respect) each other. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: Jim Carroll Date: 17 Sep 15 - 07:53 PM "decimated by governments particularly mrs Thatcher," Thank you Dick - it's nice to have someone stand up for what Britain was good at rather than these "patriots" who tell us what crap we produced and how lazy and incompetent the British work force was - and is. My first job was in an ship repair and engineering firm on the docks and I can remember the pride that people had in the ships we built - the skill and care that went into what be built - all sold out by Thatcher and her mob so rich layabouts like Denis T could bank another million. And her supporters are still at it - telling us about "crap" British steel, which rolled off the lathe like tempered springs rather than falling off in dry chips like "superior" foreign steel (I can still remember the turner who shared the electrical workshop with us showing me how you could tell good British steel from the inferior stuff that was beginning to be shipped in to undermine British Steel products. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Sep 15 - 08:15 PM The complication is that people tend to have different definitions of what kind of issues belng on a left right spectrum. Some people seem to place just about everything on that spectrum, the music you like, the clothes you wear, the food you eat... I prefer to think left right should be limited to a realatively few issues, mostly to do with economic issues. There are of coure other spectra on which we can place our opinions and so forth -- authoritarian/ libertarian, religious/ atheiist, and a few more. But I think it's healthier to keep the different spectra separate, and realise that just because someone is close to us or far away on one, it needn't carry over to the others. It's perfectly possible to be extremely religious and extremely left, and equally to be extremely anti- religious and far left, and so on. Separating things out like that tends towards greater tolerance, I feel, mixing them together makes for bigotry, wwhich can ccrop up just about anywhere. ...... As for folk music and left right, I always like to remember something I read that happened while they were getting together to commemorate the bicentenary of the French Revolution. Apparently they wanted to set up a big traditional music event, with loads of traditional musicians frrom places like Brittany. But when they got them together and explained what it was about the reaction wasn't what they expected. Celbrate the Fench Revolution? For.many Bretons the French Revolution still has the same kind of historic meaning as tye English Revolution still has in Ireland, for the same kind of reasons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: Steve Shaw Date: 17 Sep 15 - 08:37 PM "Not so long ago discussing homosexuality or immigration was considered bigotry by most of the UK Mudcat contributors." This has absolutely never, ever, been the case. Discussing matters has never been regarded as bigotry. What has been regarded as bigotry has been ignorant, unsupportable and prejudiced remarks about minority or ethnic groups. Sadly, it's hardly a surprise that you can't tell the difference. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: Steve Shaw Date: 17 Sep 15 - 08:44 PM " It's perfectly possible to be extremely religious and extremely left..." Whilst I agree (as ever) with most of what you say, I don't think I can agree with this. I think it's possible to be religious in a liberal and all-embracing sense and be left-wing, but not extremely religious and extremely left. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Sep 15 - 09:56 PM Depends if you count anarchism as far left. Plenty of religious anarchists. Also depends what you mean by extremely religious. I think you could be thinking in terms of fundamentalism which is a very different notion. I'd call Gandhi and Tolstoy extremely religious. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 17 Sep 15 - 10:03 PM I agree with steve to the extent that you should not teach belief that is unsubstantiated. However he has been passing off his beliefs without being able to substantiate them, and blasts me for not accepting what he has been unable to substantiate. As far as I,m concerned his "faith is a great delusion " . The fact is , I have bought many evidences against his beliefs, and all he can bring against mine is the evolutionism he has been unable to substantiate. If you don't want the heat stay out of the kitchen, Steve. Your intolerance of Christians only displays your entrenched opposition to other POV. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 18 Sep 15 - 01:38 AM Steve Shaw: "Not very fair, HiLo. I spend quite a lot of time on some of my posts..." Maybe you should just learn how to type. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 18 Sep 15 - 03:39 AM Jim, I'm not an expert - historian - I don't understand these things but this is what the majority of historians... It is not right wing to believe the history books above lefty mudcatters on matters of history. You think you are right about everything, but that is just an arrogant conceit. Other views are available. Likewise other references to expert or inside knowledge. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: Jim Carroll Date: 18 Sep 15 - 03:58 AM "I'm not an expert " Don't remember mentioning a name but you seen to have identified yourself with my description - as did everybody else. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 18 Sep 15 - 04:20 AM "The fact is , I have bought many evidences against his beliefs, and all he can bring against mine is the evolutionism he has been unable to substantiate." Oh no! Here we go again! So you've purchased (bought?) some "evidences" have you, pete? How much do they cost and where can I buy some from? Presumably, you mean that you've (deep breath) "BROUGHT some evidences against his beliefs" (English grammar is not one of your strong points, is it pete?). Actually, I don't recall you bringing any "evidences" - or even any evidence - against anything. All I can recall is you parroting nonsense from creationist websites. And to save us re-opening the evolution vs creation 'debate' again, why don't you lift your head (all green, foul smelling and slimy) out of the creationist swamp and go and read some of the excellent and readily available popular texts on evolution which are out there. Steve Jones's books would be a good start. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: Steve Shaw Date: 18 Sep 15 - 04:22 AM Learn how to type? I'll have you know that I have the fastest one finger in the west. Actually, at this very moment I'm multitasking with it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: Steve Shaw Date: 18 Sep 15 - 04:30 AM Better to just laugh, Shimrod. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: akenaton Date: 18 Sep 15 - 04:40 AM Shimrod, I often agree with you, but your last sneering post is unworthy of anyone who calls himself a socialist. We have both made typing mistakes many times pete's meaning was obvious and his stance is polite and worth consideration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 18 Sep 15 - 04:46 AM Allan, the particular problem of the Tory party is that they are identified with the elites of Oxbridge and London City. Maggie Thatcher spent years learning an exaggerated "posh" accent, and only weeks learning economic theory. Therefore, people who sing folk songs (particularly from the North) are typically reluctant to proclaim their emotional identification with the Tories. Still they may be conservative with a small c, in some of the meanings of the word. In the USA, the image of conservatism is quite different, not predominantly white-collar and definitely not academic. (See also Mudcat threads about "Is Country Folk?".) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: Teribus Date: 18 Sep 15 - 05:13 AM "the sad thing is that much of the industry that Jim talks about has been [d]ecimated by governments particularly mrs Thatcher, MUCH INDUSTRY HAS BEEN MOVED TO THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES, so it is hardly surprising if there are fewer working class people in folk clubs, because there are fewer people working, fewer people manufacturing, and less money to spend." Dick - take a look at who closed more pits - Conservative or Labour - Answer: Labour. Our Steel, Coal, motor industry and shipbuilding went to the wall not because of the will of any government in the the UK, they went to the wall because they could not compete in the world market and in the case of Steel, Coal and Shipbuilding the government subsidies paid were decreed illegal and unfair by the EEC/EU. Yes heavy labour intensive industries did gravitate to "third world countries" they provided the competition that the UK could not compete with. India's rail, coal, steel and garment manufacturers infrastructure was set up by British investment during the nineteenth century. The "working class" that those on this forum witter on about have long since departed, according to world statistics the only class across the whole face of the planet that is expanding rapidly is the "middle class". And Dick counter to what you state there is a higher percentage of the population of the UK in work today than at any other time in history of these islands. The reason there are fewer people in folk clubs these days is because fewer people are interested in the output in terms of the standard of material and performance in those clubs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: Steve Shaw Date: 18 Sep 15 - 05:56 AM Many of that "higher percentage" of yours are part time, or temporary, or on bogus "apprenticeships" paying £2.79 per hour that have nothing to do with training and everything to do with paying less than half the minimum wage, or equally bogus "self-employed" (to evade National Insurance contributions by employers), or on zero hour contracts (almost a million and shooting up). None so blind... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: Mo the caller Date: 18 Sep 15 - 05:56 AM Back to what you tell your children. All our most deeply held values are beliefs, hard to back up with evidence. Most people teach the beliefs first, the reasoning afterwards. You don't say "well I think it's wrong to hit your sister with a hammer, this is why, but you must make up your own mind" it's "PUT THAT HAMMER DOWN" maybe adding "or there will be consequences" Logically it makes sense not to 'do as you would be done by' but to 'do what you can get away with' but even without being Theist most people think some things are right and try to instil those ideas in their children. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: Steve Shaw Date: 18 Sep 15 - 06:11 AM I would not be telling my child that I think it's wrong to hit his sister with a hammer. I would be telling him that's it's wrong to hit his sister with a hammer. I sort of agree with your last sentence. But what I'm really saying is that, hands down, there is no evidence that God exists, therefore no evidence that the Gospels are factual accounts, enough to please an historian. In consequence, it is not justifiable to make your child believe in God. It is justifiable to tell him that you believe in God, here's why, and one day you can make up your own mind. This is what I've always said, and for saying it I've been called intolerant, bigoted, a militant atheist, etc. but what I've never been told is what's actually wrong with it! And I do set the bar quite high for evidence. I do it in all other walks of life, so I'm not giving religion a bye. Why should I? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 18 Sep 15 - 06:15 AM "Shimrod, I often agree with you, but your last sneering post is unworthy of anyone who calls himself a socialist." Well, Ake, "I never promised you a rose garden"! Generally, I try to treat people with respect but some people are not worthy of respect - particularly people who don't appear to be able to think for themselves. Pete continually parrots stuff from creationist websites but when, on previous threads, a number of us have asked that he present evidence to support his beliefs he has merely parroted back "show me your evidence!" then sneered at any evidence that doesn't fit with what he has chosen to believe in. To reject the whole of modern science because it doesn't support your beliefs is beyond silly! And, Mo, there is plenty of evidence that hitting people with hammers causes injuries! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: Jim Carroll Date: 18 Sep 15 - 07:10 AM "MUCH INDUSTRY HAS BEEN MOVED TO THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES", by conservatives who would rather trade in goods made by swet labour than support British industry - much more profitable for those who would make a quick buck without getting their hands dirty. " Answer: Labour" Another distortion - Labour may have overseen the closure of more pits, but decades of sabotage of the mining industry by Conservative governments had destroyed it as a viable concern - whatever their failings, Labour were left to pick up the debris "because they could not compete in the world market" Our industries were viable and efficient and the products were of a high quality - Thatnk to Tory philosophy, it was more profitable to invest abroad in inferior products so quality and efficiency were sacrificed so the investors could make a quick buck out of sweat labour abroad - steel industry, textiles, electronics... and the rest - all gone - that is "competing on world markets". You describe British Steel as "crap" yet it was the best in the world, and accepted as such - that was place by inferior foreign product. Far from the "middle class expanding" the distance between the classes has become a yawning chasm thanks to the accelerating wealth of the rich and the increase in poverty and insecurity - poverty among the lower paid who have become poorer - they have not disappeared, just become an invisible inconvenience. Unemployed workers are still working class. What has changed is the emergence of sub-groups - a division of the working class into poorer groups ('precariat' and 'emergent service workers') - largely regionally based, thanks to Thatcher's 'Home Counties v the rest of Britain' to divide the nation' tactic. Are you still claiming that British Steel was crap? - don't expect an answer - just keeping your ant- British attitude on the boil Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: Big Al Whittle Date: 18 Sep 15 - 07:35 AM just want to concur with that. Mudcatter, Yorkshire Yankee was married to a metallurgist, they both lived in Sheffield and she came to one of my gigs. at the time i was looking for a good knife for cooking. the lady's husband assured me that Sheffield steel was the very best and they got me this brilliant knife set - cheaper than all the poncy foreign alternatives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: Steve Shaw Date: 18 Sep 15 - 09:03 AM Don't forget the Tories' favourite, and mythical, subgroup, Jim, the "undeserving poor with a benefits lifestyle". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: Stu Date: 18 Sep 15 - 09:53 AM There is a correlation (though that does not imply causation as the saying goes) between folk who form opinions based on evidence (such as that presented by science for example) and those whose opinions are formed by ideology. Left-wingers tend to be more evidence-based than right-wingers and the religious. There are exceptions of course, but if you look at the way the threat of climate change (for example) is treated by right-wingers (wrong, hoax, deny, etc) then they totally ignore the available scientific evidence, as will a UK tory when it comes to the percentage false benefit claims. This dichotomy is responsible for the mess the western powers have allowed their countries to get into by allowing markets to dictate policy where possible. There's no doubt if you give people free heath care they will live longer and suffer less whilst alive, yet many right-wingers (especially in the US) don't care if people do die young and suffer needlessly because they believe an inability to pay is a sign of weakness. As for religion, whatever the more fanatical religious folk on this site say there's zero scientific evidence to support any of the creation theories, existence of god, the devil or the flying spaghetti monster. If personal revelation tells you it's true then fine, but don't go pretending science supports your supernatural interpretation of the world; it doesn't. That said, many people's faith (including scientists) is thankfully a little more sophisticated than the fundamentalist headbangers absolutist claptrap. We all know how that ends. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: Jim Carroll Date: 18 Sep 15 - 10:07 AM "undeserving poor with a benefits lifestyle" Think that's incorporated in the 'precariat' - the bottom of the pile, but to 'intellectuals' like Terrytoon (aka as Mr Oakhampton) all workers are like that - an inconvenient bunch of scroungers who need to get on our bikes. Never though I'd ever come acroos anybody who describes British Steel as "crap" - not even a self-serving Tory Rule Britannia eh? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Sep 15 - 10:26 AM Arguments about religion can be interesting, and even valuable. But I think it's a mistake to think of differences about religion as markers of conservatism or the reverse (whatever we choose to call the reverse) in other contexts. If you are on a barricade or even a picket line you don't want to worry whether the person beside you has what you (and me) see as daft ideas about creationism which they associate with religious beliefs. In the same way I see assuming that ethical values like tolerance and compassion relate directly to politics. You can get cruel and intolerant socialists, anarchists, liberals, conservatives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: Bill D Date: 18 Sep 15 - 10:45 AM Because Mudcat allows more debate on certain topics than 'most' forums, it is easy for people with uncompromising views & attitudes to get carried away in expressing themselves.... and that brings out those who have disagreements with both facts & mode of expression.... which means that "mode of expression" often turns to insult, invective and characterizations of personality. The idea of debating only the position instead of labeling the person seems to be lost on many. It is also the case... (and I have seen it admitted several times).. that some just simply relish the process of contentious argument and seem to consider it wimpy to back off & defuse things when the temperature gets too hot. There are several mindsets that are displayed in these situations... one is the "my mind is made up... don't confuse me with facts" type. Another is the use of "righteous indignation" to justify almost any invective in one's defense.. or attack... of some particular cause or idea. Then we see added in cultural/religious/political "hot buttons" which can bring out immediate, knee-jerk responses for some. When these are combined, threads are closed & posts deleted. Now... read again what I just said, and note that I made no reference to ANY specific issues.... yet I would not be surprised to see reactions such as: "I suppose you meant ME in point 3a!" or "You know that point 5 is exactly how whatisname acts when anyone mentions XYZ!" This has already happened above as various well meaning folk automatically switch into defending or attacking their favorite specific issue. There is also the misconception that 'liberal' and 'conservative' are just 2 sides of the same coin. In reality, there are two very different thought processes involved in a lot of the issues in the two basic attitudes. It is not always immediately apparent, but can be seen by exploring the implicit premises involved... if you can get anyone to even discuss the actual basis and reasoning by which they arrived at their positions. It is not always even a matter of 'right or wrong', because it is possible to be 'right' about some things, while using atrocious logic & explanations... and possible to have an air-tight reasoning process and be 'wrong' due to just simply beginning with faulty premises. (I'm still not pointing a finger directly at anyone... but as Pete Seeger said about his song "Waist Deep in the Big Muddy".... "I didn't name anyone... I'm just a shoemaker, going around making shoes- but if the shoe fits...") |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: Steve Shaw Date: 18 Sep 15 - 12:29 PM Again, I was at pains to point out that religiosity in itself is not an indicator of right-wingism. To put it bluntly, it's what you do with your religion that matters, and I did say there were degrees. I'm not going over it again. It's in my over-long post high up the thread. To be honest, Bill, while I get what you're trying to say, most people reading that will think it doesn't apply to them, therefore it gets you nowhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: Big Al Whittle Date: 18 Sep 15 - 12:35 PM so basically - we can believe in God, as long as God agrees with Steve about everything. sounds all right to me! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: Steve Shaw Date: 18 Sep 15 - 12:37 PM What's that supposed to mean? Anyway, I don't know whether there's a God or not. Neither does anyone else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: Amos Date: 18 Sep 15 - 12:44 PM I think "conservatism" is a wide spectrum. A long time ago it merant people who wanted to preserve natural environments. It ranges from those who are willing to change but carefully and slowly, to those who use the label to cloak an almost rabid resistance to change. In addition to rates of change and tolerance thereto, it seems as well to describe a spectrum of belief about how much tolerance toward other points of view an individual actually practices. The belief that every human being is part of the same rigid box and should comply with one's own moral precepts or perceptions is a hallmark of hard-over conservatism, in some labeling systems. So it strikes me that one would have to identify exactly what behavior or conviction one was referring to in applying such a label,because the word itself has so many semantic branches attached to it. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: The Sandman Date: 18 Sep 15 - 01:00 PM there is a god, its called spirituality, the belief in goodness,its little different from humanism. its difficult for scientists [in my experience] to get their head round this one, they have the same problems as mathematicians, they always need proof, but spirituality is not about proof. its the same reason why you can play the harmonica well but you cannot play slow airs its about feeling |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: GUEST,HiLo Date: 18 Sep 15 - 01:03 PM I come from a conservative religious background. I practise my religion. In some quarters this alone would define me as right wing. On the other hand I believe in evoloution, same sex marriage, a womans right to an abortion, I am vehemently anti guns, I cannot regard any country as civilized that does not provide free health care to all of the citizens and I support most social benefits programs. On the other hand, I am pro Israel, but not blindly so and am against some Israeli actions. But I do know that Israel needs to exist. I see some good in Capitalism but I think it needs to be cleansed of greed and stupidity. I am not against immigration, but I see a need for reasonable caution. I am not Islamophobic but I do recognize the threat of radicalized terroists. Like most people, I am a mix of both left and right. What bothers me is the broad sweeping statements about what constitutes left and right. Other than intolerant extremists on both sides, I think we are all a bit of both. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: Big Al Whittle Date: 18 Sep 15 - 01:03 PM well actually you're wrong. lots of people 'know' there is a god, and their bloke is the top guy. knows all kinds of shit about everything. just like you know your point of view is cock on. when you set yourself up to be arbitrator of what is right wing and left wing. you assume that your insight is the one that 'knows' where the centre is. when you get down to it - its all a bit solipsistic. your insight might work for you, but it won't work for everybody. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Sep 15 - 01:27 PM I'm still puzzled by why so many people seem to think that beliefs about religion have some instrinsic relationship to opinions about politics. The fact that in certain societies religious views get attached to political issues is a matter of historical chance. The kind of religious beliefs, or hostility to religion, that in one kind of society might tend to coincide with the extreme right in another society might be associated with the extreme left. There's a lot of different between the actions and beliefs of those running Isis and those running Saudi Arabia ( a lot of similarities too), but the understanding they have of the Quran is remarkably similar in theological terms. And I don't know where you could place Isis on a left right spectrum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: Steve Shaw Date: 18 Sep 15 - 01:51 PM I think most people would put IS on the extreme right. "Scientists...have the same problems as mathematicians, they always need proof" This is precisely the opposite of the case. Scientists never need proof. As for practising your religion defining you as somehow right-wing, not in my book it doesn't. What could define you as right-wing is what you do with your religion with regard to influencing other people with it. Religion becomes a political issue when it ceases to be a matter that is exclusively private to the individual. Too many people of faith think that their religion is the only right one or that it is finding deeper truths for them (I suppose you can occasionally get to truth via lies...), and try to persuade or coerce others apropos of its veracity. I believe that Bill Shankly was the greatest football manager who ever lived, but I can't provide you with any evidence to that effect that would even remotely stand up. But at least he definitely existed, and did win one or two things. It isn't nearly enough (except for me, but I'm deluded), but it's more than any believer can claim, and at least I'm honest enough to admit that it isn't enough. To me, this is religion's main problem. But simply having a faith does not in itself place you on any political spectrum, as it has nothing to do with politics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: Steve Shaw Date: 18 Sep 15 - 02:08 PM Well, Al, I am puzzled by your animosity. Never mind. Now lots of people in this thread have expressed views on what's right or left. I started off by saying that people don't mind being called lefties but, in my experience, no-one likes to be called right-wing. They are handles that we use whether you like it or not. I did not set myself up as an arbitrator because I'm not arbitrating. Maybe you meant something else. I also said it was a can of worms (I was bracing myself). Nothing is going to get people feeling more defensive than if they think they're being branded right-wing. So tell me what I got wrong. I don't mind, honest. Here it is again: Being opposed to abortion doesn't make you right-wing. Campaigning to have it banned or restricted is right-wing behaviour. Standing outside an abortion clinic harassing women and their doctors is positively fascist. Being religious does not make you right-wing. Telling lies to your children about God and making them go to faith schools when there are other choices is right-wing. Forcing people to pay homage to your particular version of God under pain of mutilation or death is fascist. There are degrees. Believing in the continued existence of the state of Israel now that it's here is not right-wing. That happens to be my view and I don't think I'm that right-wing. Justifying the repressive treatment meted out to Palestinians by the Israeli regime (note careful inclusion of the word regime) is definitely right-wing. That is not to say that there should be no criticism of the other side, by the way. Building a wall that divides farms and families, stealing the best land, imprisoning a million and a half people in the world's biggest slum and making Arabs wait at road blocks for three days is fascistic behaviour. Which is not the same as calling people fascists. Clement Atlee was left-wing, but on his watch gay men were harassed and imprisoned and he didn't do much about it. If that were the case today, I should think we'd be calling him pretty right-wing owing to his presiding over an intolerable situation. These things have a habit of evolving. We either have a conversation about this or we don't. If we do, it helps to define terms. Sometimes, illustration is an effective way to do that. So tell me which of my examples are wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Sep 15 - 02:41 PM I'd see stuff like campaigning against abortion etc as being on a libertarian/authoritarian axis, nor politically left or right. I'm sure a lot of people would put Isis on the extreme right, but I'm not at all sure they are right. It's a vicious and repressive regime in all kinds of ways, but that is just as compatible with being extreme left, or even being centrist. When Fidel Castro was cracking down on gays, I don't think that was being rightwing, it was being leftwing, but in a repressive and sexist way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 18 Sep 15 - 03:30 PM There are comments above that indicate that people think the conservatives at Mudcat are wrongly denying their conservatism. I think it's true - there are very few extreme conservatives at Mudcat. They all seem far more reasonable than many of the people who write letters to my local newspaper. Current themes in my newspaper:
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: GUEST,Howard Jones Date: 18 Sep 15 - 03:44 PM I can get my head around "left" or "right" wing as broad concepts about economic and social structures, but when you try to pin them on specific points of view, as Steve does, it seems to get more complicated. Steve suggests that "Standing outside an abortion clinic harassing women and their doctors is positively fascist. " OK, but what about harassing scientists who experiment with animals, or fox hunts, or badger culls? It appears to me that most of those would identify themselves as being on the left rather than the far right. It's not difficult to think of a left-wing regime which built a wall dividing families, or which imprisoned millions. Or which persecuted gays. It's difficult to apply these labels to very similar forms of behaviour, and the danger is that you apply them according to one's own prejudices. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: Steve Shaw Date: 18 Sep 15 - 03:50 PM Well Joe, I don't own this thread or the conversation, but you shifted the subject below the line because I made a comment on a music thread about Mudcat attracting some right-wingers. I didn't actually say "conservative". That was your take and I don't object, but personally I find the word "conservative" a bit too confusing to be useful in a discussion on political stance. I call Amos 12.44 pm as witness to that. I think that the examples you give are right-wing. I think I'm merely going along with the general current understanding of that expression. I've been criticised for what I've said (I'm OK cos I'm a big lad) and I'm perfectly prepared to be corrected. See above post of mine responding to Big Al. I await. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: Big Al Whittle Date: 18 Sep 15 - 03:50 PM why do you think IS is right wing? it was a labour government that set up the ayatollah and let the islamic fundamentalist genie out of the bottle. Remember David Owen going jogging with Andrew Stone in Hyde Park as they both agreed to drop the Shah off their christmas card list. who bitches about the incursions into the civil rights of british citizens killed by drone strikes as they fight for IS? Life isn't quite as clear cut as you pretend. that is our British heritage. as George Orwell pointed out chanting four legs good, two legs bad - left is right. right is wrong - it simply doesn't guarantee anything. it doesn't cut it. except you betray our liberal and free thinking heritage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 18 Sep 15 - 03:59 PM I used to be a socialist but there was a time when I realized that "The Left" as it used to be, was long dead. These are a different species of nouveau fascists. Conformism is important for lefties today, they can't allow someone challenging their propaganda that's why they resort to their childish behaviour of name calling and putting labels on those who do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 18 Sep 15 - 04:17 PM "except you betray our liberal and free thinking heritage." Hear, hear Al! Those who adhere to the dogma of the left or the right are no better than those who adhere to religious dogma even though they profess to be above it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat From: Steve Shaw Date: 18 Sep 15 - 04:40 PM Steve suggests that "Standing outside an abortion clinic harassing women and their doctors is positively fascist. " OK, but what about harassing scientists who experiment with animals, or fox hunts, or badger culls? It appears to me that most of those would identify themselves as being on the left rather than the far right. That is a good challenge and it's hard to respond to. The kneejerk and pretty useless response would be that abortion harassment is wrong but so are animal experimentation, fox hunting and badger culling. But saying that (in my opinion) the demonstrators have right on their side is not the same as saying that their violent tactics are right. I think that if they do that they are no better than the anti-abortion extremists. There are better ways of passionately informing people of your views than the use of harassment or violence. That is not to say that non-violent direct action can't be brilliant. I just don't think it's people you should be attacking, that's all. Many people work in jobs that fail ethically in my book. I'm opposed to Trident but I have to respect the fact that thousands of people who are employed in that industry are doing it, in hard times, to put food on their tables. I think that many farming practices are cruel and brutal, but in many ways the consumer society and demand for cheap food has forced that. I have many friends who work at CSOS Morwenstow, the listening station of GCHQ, which is just up the road from us. They have the ability to listen in to every telephone communication and email ever made in this country. I detest that but they are just bringing home the bacon, aren't they? Making the argument against does not require violence, and my view is that everyone who resorts to violent protest is in the same boat, whether I sympathise with their cause our not. It's not difficult to think of a left-wing regime which built a wall dividing families, or which imprisoned millions. Or which persecuted gays. This is not such a good challenge. Those regimes were not anything like approaching left-wing in my view. That label (or its variants, such as communist) was persistently applied by western regimes in the Cold War with an axe to grind and a foe to demonise. Very convenient, as "left", "reds" and "communist" were expressions that had been extremely successfully demonised for decades by US regimes in particular, culminating in McCarthyism, which still resounds with a good many yanks today, admit it. We regard Hitler as right-wing, Pinochet as right-wing and Franco as right-wing. So tell me what qualitative differences there were between the ways they treated their people and the way Stalin and Mao treated theirs. Not an easy one that, is it? More a case of a deliberately misapplied term, I'd say. |