How much would EU citizenship be worth to you?

TrickyTree83

Nothing at all. I'm perfectly happy, isolated in little england

wotsthat wrote: »

What's the difference between listening to 'the man' who says the Queen should be deferred to and listening to another man who says anyone with testicles should be deferred to?

One is theocratic dogma. The unalterable will of Allah in written form. The other, a social construct from a bygone age, can change if it was a problem to many, republicans will likely say as much.

gadgetmind

£1000 per year

Rich2808 wrote: »

Did you miss the other 17.4m people who voted leave bar Farage?

Without his lies and rabble-rousing, they wouldn't have voted that way.

wotsthat

£100 per year

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

One is theocratic dogma. The unalterable will of Allah in written form. The other, a social construct from a bygone age, can change if it was a problem to many, republicans will likely say as much.

Do you think Prince Phillip should change his behaviour if walking behind the Queen became a problem 'to many'? I don't - I can't see why he can't walk alongside his wife should he so wish or what it's got to do with anyone else at all.

Same with nonsensical deference to a husband.

Whether it's one of god's (self) appointed Earthly interpreters or a long standing social construct they're both attempts to coerce people to behave in ways they wouldn't naturally consider and should be rejected.

It's a bit odd arguing that it's bad for some people to behave how 'the man' tells them to behave but its not for others. Does it depend on whether you agree with 'the man' or not?

Conrad

Nothing at all. I'm perfectly happy, isolated in little england

gadgetmind wrote: »

Without his lies and rabble-rousing, they wouldn't have voted that way.

Peter Kellner of YOUGOV reckons the Leave vote was a landslide when set against the overwhelming odds in the shape of the entire Establishment, all 3 main parties and HM Govt campaigning for Remain, employing terror inducing tactics in the process.


I'm glad I voted out of self confidence and calm reason as opposed to fear and nonsense. Almost every Remain argument was a fairy tale


Peak shock was the vote itself, the gradual trading transition is nothing of concern. The FTSE 250 indicates investors have great confidence going forwards, not to mention growth of money supply

mrginge

Nothing at all. I'm perfectly happy, isolated in little england

wotsthat wrote: »

Do you think Prince Phillip should change his behaviour if walking behind the Queen became a problem 'to many'? I don't - I can't see why he can't walk alongside his wife should he so wish or what it's got to do with anyone else at all.

Same with nonsensical deference to a husband.

Whether it's one of god's (self) appointed Earthly interpreters or a long standing social construct they're both attempts to coerce people to behave in ways they wouldn't naturally consider and should be rejected.

It's a bit odd arguing that it's bad for some people to behave how 'the man' tells them to behave but its not for others. Does it depend on whether you agree with 'the man' or not?

I think I can say with reasonable certainty that the consequences of prince Phillip deciding walk alongside the queen would be quite different to the consequences for the woman in Masomnia's example.

wotsthat

£100 per year

mrginge wrote: »

I think I can say with reasonable certainty that the consequences of prince Phillip deciding walk alongside the queen would be quite different to the consequences for the woman in Masomnia's example.

Yes agreed although that wasn't being disputed.

TrickyTree83

Nothing at all. I'm perfectly happy, isolated in little england

wotsthat wrote: »

Do you think Prince Phillip should change his behaviour if walking behind the Queen became a problem 'to many'? I don't - I can't see why he can't walk alongside his wife should he so wish or what it's got to do with anyone else at all.

Same with nonsensical deference to a husband.

Whether it's one of god's (self) appointed Earthly interpreters or a long standing social construct they're both attempts to coerce people to behave in ways they wouldn't naturally consider and should be rejected.

It's a bit odd arguing that it's bad for some people to behave how 'the man' tells them to behave but its not for others. Does it depend on whether you agree with 'the man' or not?

That's not what I said at all, I was not arguing for having Phillip walk behind the Queen, you brought that up and I simply pointed out why that was the case.

When you look at why patriarchal dogma is the way it is in Islam, it's because it's written in the Quran that it should be this way and the Quran is the unalterable word of Allah.

If Phillip wants to walk next to the Queen he can do so, I have no feelings either way on the matter, if the Queen says he shouldn't because of royal etiquette it is entirely up to the two of them to work it out. If enough people disliked that Phillip walked behind the Queen because it appeared discriminatory and the royal family refused to adapt then there's the option to abolish it. It's not unalterable in any way.

Also, I don't think the comparison is equal. The list of oppressive dogma in the Quran is quite extensive. Phillip walking behind the Queen doesn't oppress a group of people based on something they are unable to control, such as gender or sexuality.

Edit: Perhaps I've looked into this more, but if you study a comparison between Christianity, which spawned the Western liberal democracies we enjoy today versus Islam you'll find significant differences. The definition of sin for example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins

The Christian 7 deadly sins are based on character traits.

The equivalent in Islam looks like this...

http://www.deenislam.co.uk/demo/heart/List%20of%2070%20Major%20Sins%A0.htm

In particular the "Major sins", you'll notice although they have some based (perhaps loosely) on character traits, that quite a few are simply rules or laws. Like a system of government. Numbers 15, 47 and 57 are my favourites.

When you consider these and the other rules that Islam has alongside the assertion that the Quran is the final and unalterable word of Allah I realised that Islam in its purest form is incompatible with Western liberal democracy.

The modern form of Islam which many do follow, which involves straying from the dogma somewhat, is certainly more compatible. Sadly what we're seeing is that there is a sizeable section of the Islamic community who follow the purist Islamic view or "radical" Islam and that will exasperate social cohesion. Think Anjem Choudary and followers, these people spur our far right "thinkers" (the true far right) to take action. Both groups should be argued against and libertarian values should win out, it just doesn't appear to happen because of political correctness.

MacMickster

gadgetmind wrote: »

Without his lies and rabble-rousing, they wouldn't have voted that way.

Really?

I suspect that if Farage had not been such an odious character far more would have voted for Brexit than actually did so. He was a huge positive for the remain side.

In effect, part of the remain vote was merely an anti-Farage vote rather than being based on the issues.

wotsthat

£100 per year

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

That's not what I said at all, I was not arguing for having Phillip walk behind the Queen, you brought that up and I simply pointed out why that was the case.

When you look at why patriarchal dogma is the way it is in Islam, it's because it's written in the Quran that it should be this way and the Quran is the unalterable word of Allah.

If Phillip wants to walk next to the Queen he can do so, I have no feelings either way on the matter, if the Queen says he shouldn't because of royal etiquette it is entirely up to the two of them to work it out. If enough people disliked that Phillip walked behind the Queen because it appeared discriminatory and the royal family refused to adapt then there's the option to abolish it. It's not unalterable in any way.

Also, I don't think the comparison is equal. The list of oppressive dogma in the Quran is quite extensive. Phillip walking behind the Queen doesn't oppress a group of people based on something they are unable to control, such as gender or sexuality.

Edit: Perhaps I've looked into this more, but if you study a comparison between Christianity, which spawned the Western liberal democracies we enjoy today versus Islam you'll find significant differences. The definition of sin for example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins

The Christian 7 deadly sins are based on character traits.

The equivalent in Islam looks like this...

http://www.deenislam.co.uk/demo/heart/List%20of%2070%20Major%20Sins%A0.htm

In particular the "Major sins", you'll notice although they have some based (perhaps loosely) on character traits, that quite a few are simply rules or laws. Like a system of government. Numbers 15, 47 and 57 are my favourites.

When you consider these and the other rules that Islam has alongside the assertion that the Quran is the final and unalterable word of Allah I realised that Islam in its purest form is incompatible with Western liberal democracy.

The modern form of Islam which many do follow, which involves straying from the dogma somewhat, is certainly more compatible. Sadly what we're seeing is that there is a sizeable section of the Islamic community who follow the purist Islamic view or "radical" Islam and that will exasperate social cohesion. Think Anjem Choudary and followers, these people spur our far right "thinkers" (the true far right) to take action. Both groups should be argued against and libertarian values should win out, it just doesn't appear to happen because of political correctness.

The Quran is only the word of god because 'the man' says so. Christianity is pretty much the same side of the same coin i.e. a different man interprets what god wants so he can get people to behave in the way he would like them to.

I reject being told how to behave by either. There's also a real irony in crediting a religion with the spawning of western liberal democracies.

The point I was trying to make (which is massively off-topic) is that I'm cynical about the motives of people who point out things about others that are incompatible with a liberal democracy. Much of the time it's not only because they reject what the man says but also because they want them to do what a different man says. Burkha bans are a good example. One man says you must wear one and another says you mustn't. Women should be allowed to wear whatever they like.

If a woman (or man) decides to walk three steps behind their spouse because someone in charge has told them to and it's not what they want to do then they are fools rather than a threat to society.

Herzlos

£100 per year

MacMickster wrote: »

I suspect that if Farage had not been such an odious character far more would have voted for Brexit than actually did so. He was a huge positive for the remain side.

I don't know. He he hadn't been so odious he wouldn't have had anything like as much air time, and if the left hadn't kept bringing him up and telling people they were stupid for listening to him, I think he'd have largely been ignored.

We turned him into some sort of anti-establishment figurehead, which people then stubbornly latched onto.