Chomsky on Trump

[ardcarp]

First time I've looked at this thread. Why is it allowed? I used to enjoy the political threads, but they were all stopped because they were ... Political. How does this one exist?

Welcome to the secret subversive cellar, Pabs. The presses keep rolling because our leader has a moral compass which allows her to descend the steps (shutting the trap-door firmly behind her).

[ahinton]

Paul Nuttall is a good working class lad from Bootle in Merseyside. What the UKIP leader said was ....

”If waterboarding ensures that we save a number of lives in this country or in America because someone admits to something that is going to happen in terms of a terrorist attack, well through gritted teeth I'd probably be OK with it.

“If someone admits that a terrorist attack is going to happen and saves the lives of innocent individuals then I think maybe it's a price worth paying … if a British government was elected and said it was required to ensure it saved innocent people's live then sometimes you have to go that extra mile.”

A very realistic position for UKIP to take on the matter.

Here’s the interview that the story in your link is based on.

What "controls" are you accusing the UKIP leader of having his “grubby mitts on”?

UKIP can take whatever position it likes on torture and taken the consequences thereof; it's hardly likely to endear UKIP to more than a handful of people who probably already hold such views irrespective what Nuttall says, but that's of no concern to me. As MrGG rightly states, "Torture is totally unacceptable and illegal...Whether it's fanatics in the desert or people in the west makes no difference just as chopping the heads of your "enemies" is totally unacceptable regardless of whether you want to sell them weapons or not".

End of. Aside even from the humanitarian and human rights aspect of it, there is also no evidence that any instance of its commission has ever helped to save anyone's life.

[Pabmusic]

Welcome to the secret subversive cellar, Pabs. The presses keep rolling because our leader has a moral compass which allows her to descend the steps (shutting the trap-door firmly behind her).

Well, is my blood pressure up to it? Dealing with those who think that Middle Ages morality is somehow acceptable? Mmm ... I'll have to give it some thought.

[Beef Oven!]

UKIP can take whatever position it likes on torture and taken the consequences thereof; it's hardly likely to endear UKIP to more than a handful of people who probably already hold such views irrespective what Nuttall says, but that's of no concern to me.

Paul Nuttall is drawing attention to the moral perplexity of state-used torture and giving his and UKIP’s view, which is likely to resonate with an awful lot of people. You may not like PN, UKIP or this take on torture, but don’t make the mistake that everyone shares your view ......

As MrGG rightly states, "Torture is totally unacceptable and illegal...Whether it's fanatics in the desert or people in the west makes no difference just as chopping the heads of your "enemies" is totally unacceptable regardless of whether you want to sell them weapons or not".

The point is it’s not totally unacceptable. There may be time where it is justified (introducing the idea about selling weapons is just a tactical distraction that narrows to discussion to something that is easier for you et al to argue for; but the discussion is wider than that).

End of.

You are Edogan, and I claim my £5

[Beef Oven!]

Well, is my blood pressure up to it? Dealing with those who think that Middle Ages morality is somehow acceptable? Mmm ... I'll have to give it some thought.

You come across as very superior. You don’t have to 'deal' with anyone (whatever that means). There are moral dilemmas concerning the use of torture and it is worthy of debate. There is nothing 'Middle Ages' about such a debate.

[french frank]

I am trying to get this back on to a more theoretical basis, but if people keep trying to return it to Beef Oven's UKIP arguments (sometimes I wonder whether he's just winding people up) the thread will disappear. Probably for good because in the end I get fed up with it. House Rules are rules: no party politics.

It may simply be that self-imposed 'rules' governing morality, equality, democracy, truthfulness and such always put you at a disavantage compared with those who reject those rules. How far is it permissible to break your own rules in order to oppose/fight those who persistently disregard them?

[Beef Oven!]

I am trying to get this back on to a more theoretical basis, but if people keep trying to return it to Beef Oven's UKIP arguments (sometimes I wonder whether he's just winding people up) the thread will disappear. Probably for good because in the end I get fed up with it. House Rules are rules: no party politics.

I am not ‘just winding people up’. You shouldn’t make accusations like that. I’d like you to retract that.

Return it to my ‘UKIP’ arguments? It’s MrGG's UKIP’s posts that you mean, surely? I’ve made no UKIP arguments. I’ve only responded to MrGG’s gratuitous UKIP post.

And you might want to consider the motivation and value of Pab’s contribution, rather than worry about me.

[Conchis]

I don't believe that Nuttall is working-class. Possession of a thick scouse accent does not automatically make one a member of the proletariat.

He is of some interest as an example of instinctive right-wing views prevailing against the challenges of a liberal arts education.

His new 'tweedy' look and beard is presumably meant to attract a more middle-class type of voter - retired military folk and the like - who might otherwise recoil from his bald head, glasses and ''Ow Ya Doin'?' persona combo.

His solution to all economic problems is encapsulated in the phrase: 'Let the Mer-Ket decide!'

He may - just - be a a bit too intellectual for the burghers of Stoke-on-Trent to take to their collective heart.

[Beef Oven!]

I am trying to get this back on to a more theoretical basis, but if people keep trying to return it to Beef Oven's UKIP arguments (sometimes I wonder whether he's just winding people up) the thread will disappear. Probably for good because in the end I get fed up with it. House Rules are rules: no party politics.

Post #304 was a gratuitous party-politics post that also made a slur against the leader of UKIP. If the House Rules are no party politics/politics, how is it that people get away with this type of post? If posts like that are allowed, then people should be allowed to respond to them. Don’t allow them in the first place, make sure people understand that such posts are unacceptable and the problem won’t exist.

[french frank]

Post #304 was a gratuitous party-politics post that also made a slur against the leader of UKIP. If the House Rules are no party politics/politics, how is it that people get away with this type of post? If posts like that are allowed, then people should be allowed to respond to them. Don’t allow them in the first place, make sure people understand that such posts are unacceptable and the problem won’t exist.

People 'get away with it' because I can't be watching out for every post. You could complain (you're not averse to this) which immediately alerts me and Hosts concerned.

[Beef Oven!]

People 'get away with it' because I can't be watching out for every post. You could complain (you're not averse to this) which immediately alerts me and Hosts concerned.

I’ve complained about 5 posts since I joined the forum in Jan 2012 !!!!

[french frank]

I’ve complained about 5 posts since I joined the forum in Jan 2012 !!!!

Which is approximately 5 times more than the majority of members.

I'm closing the thread and sending it to Diversions

http://www.for3.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?78-Diversions-closed