Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi Alan,
I appreciate the hard work you put in and the difficulty in moderating what can be a very lively forum. A bit like being a ref in a local league, without the ref you can’t have a game.
In the spirit of cooperation and harmony therefore I will refrain from calling True Scotsman a Smeggy Bell End, I will simply allow his postings to reinforce my viewpoint.
Jason Unrube, That’s the fella. I’m sure he used to sometimes have a kind of comic opera uniform he used to wear. I wonder if him and TS are one and the same person?
Thinking about the Democratic Workers Party, I was wondering if any one can remember that American clown who used to wear an odd kind of North Korean uniform and posted pro North Korean propaganda videos on youtube.
I have been racking my mind to remember his name, he was a complete spud, but I cannot for the life of me remember his name and his “party”. I used to really enjoy his videos, they were so funny, he put me in mind of TS.
Aye AJ, if you were going to get the malky off of Stalin if you didn’t do what you were told, you’d write shite like that!
TM – FYI
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.
So for example
I ask ”Do you approve of Putin’s discriminatory stance towards non heterosexual people or not?”
You respond by saying “there are no laws against no laws against homosexuality in the RF”.
Can you see what you did there, you changed discriminitory stance, to laws. Classic straw man.
Watch and learn wee man.
TM – “I should think TS is one of those who rolls about in the street brawling with members of the EDL or BNP.”
I’ve got to be honest, I don’t think TS would be much use in a ruck. I’ve met his type before on lots picket lines and protests, full of rhetoric and venom, but when it all kick’s off he’d be on his toes on a flash.
I think TS is more likely to prefer spending time sitting with a portrait of Deirdre Grsowold, mumbling about the fickle nature of unrequited love.
““I’ve got to say with your misleading responses, I am even starting to even wonder whether or not you are really even a Scotsman!”
My Lord, you aren’t the sharpest tool in the toolbox are you? The True Scotsman is a kind of logical fallacy.”
🙂 🙂 It is clear you also don’t understand the concept of Irony!
What a bell end!
Well done TS, you win the 2022 Boris Johnson award for avoiding the question!!
I’ll go through your “responses” one by one, and perhaps (I’m ever the optimist) you might actually give a clear and unequivocal response.
I said – “they sought to destroy our traditional values and force on us their false values that would erode us, our people from within, the attitudes they have been aggressively imposing on their countries, attitudes that are directly leading to degradation and degeneration, because they are contrary to human nature. This is not going to happen.” Do you, TS, believe that homosexuality is contrary to human nature and that it leads to degradation and degeneration?”
You said – “I didn’t ask you about Putin’s beliefs on the subject. I asked you what specific laws you were alluding to.”
I agree I did not ask about a specific law, that is because my original posting asked ”do you approve of Putin’s discriminatory stance towards non heterosexual people or not?” It will be noted that you have attempted first to move from my original question “Putin’s stance” to “Putin’s Policy” and then on to illegality. It might be an idea to answer the questions put in from of you. A clearer example of the straw man fallacy would be difficult to devise.
So for the sake of clarity I am now asking you if you concur with Putin’s views, as stated regarding degradation and degeneration quoted above?I wrote “in 2013 The Russian state passed a “gay propaganda” (Their quote) ban arguing that promotion of LGBT rights was harmful to children. (Do you think that the promotion of LGBT rights is harmful to children?)”
You wrote – “So you are opposed to a law preventing the teaching of gay rights in schools? There was no teaching of gay rights when I went to school. I guess I was unaware that I was actually being oppressed. Were you taught “gay rights” when you were in school?”
My response – I was taught in the 1960s and 70s in a Catholic Grammar School, I wasn’t even taught about the reproductive system other than being told that contraception was wrong. I do know that lack of teaching during childhood of the fact that homosexuality was part of the normal range of human experiences was detrimental to the long term mental health of people who grew up either confused about their sexuality or for those people who knew that they were LGBTQ. So I will ask you directly do you think that the promotion of LBGT rights is harmful to children and if so do you agree with the legal ban on this put in place by the Putin Government?
I wrote -“Do you agree with Putin that children can be “taught that a boy can become a girl and vice versa” is monstrous and “on the verge of a crime against humanity.” Quoted and backed up with video footage by the FT.”
Your response is “His views are his own”
My response – The are indeed his own; however the question was about your views. What are your views about this matter?
I wrote “in 2015 Russia also introduced a driving ban prohibiting people with “sexual disorders” including people who were transsexual or transgender. Do you approve those bans TS?”Your response was “ICD-10 especially stresses that sexual orientation by itself isn’t considered a personality disorder.” “It sounds like there’s an awful lot of leeway regarding the decree. Again, homosexuality is not criminalised in RF.”
My response is to repeat the question, do you agree with driving bans being put in place for people who are transsexual or transgendered? Again ignoring your straw man argument, my original question was not about homosexuality being banned in Russia, it was asking you if you agreed with “Putin’s discriminatory stance towards non heterosexual people or not?” it is possible to be discriminatory without putting in place a full ban. The Apartheid regime did not ban people from being black, but it was discriminatory. As to ICD-10 and personality disorder, I did not say that the particular ban stated that “sexual disorder” and personality disorder were equivalences. They are not, either by ICD-10 or DSM-5 definitions, DSM-5 moved Gender Dysphoria outside of the categorisation of sexual disorders all together.
I wrote “Do you, TS, agree with the statement of Yelena Mizulina Chairman of The Duma Committee on Family, Women and Children, that “Traditional sexual relations are relations between a man and a woman. These relations need special protection”.”
Your response – “What matters are the laws. Homosexuality is not illegal in RF.”
My response is again restating that you have put forward a straw man argument. I asked about Putin’s “discriminatory stance”. Stating that traditional sexual relationships require special protection makes a discrimination between same sex relationships and relationships between men and women, do you agree with this discriminatory stance?
I finally wrote – “Perhaps you also agree with her stance on decriminalising Domestic Violence categorised as “first assaults which cause less serious injuries””
Your response “Do stay on topic.”
My response – I wrote “perhaps you also agree” that was an attempt to expand rather than change the topic, however just to be clear, I would appreciate (and I am sure other readers will equally be interested in seeing) your response to this topic as well.It sounds like there’s an awful lot of leeway regarding the decree. Again, homosexuality is not criminalised in RF.
My response is to repeat the question, do you agree with driving bans being put in place for people who are transesual or trnasgendered? To clarify your responses further, my original question was not about homosexuality being banned in Russia, it was asking you if you agreed with “Putin’s discriminatory stance towards non heterosexual people or not?” it is possible to be discriminatory without putting in place a full ban. The Apartheid regime did not ban pepople from being black, but it was discriminatory.
You also have moved from my original question “Putin’s stance” to policy and finally on to illegality, your difficulty in answering these questions is clear to anyone reading.
I’ve got to say with your misleading responses, I am even starting to even wonder whether or not you are really even a Scotsman!
TS, well just for starters there is the speech Putin made in February 2022:
“they sought to destroy our traditional values and force on us their false values that would erode us, our people from within, the attitudes they have been aggressively imposing on their countries, attitudes that are directly leading to degradation and degeneration, because they are contrary to human nature. This is not going to happen.” Do you, TS, believe that homosexuality is contrary to human nature and that it leads to degradation and degeneration?
in 2013 The Russian state passed a “gay propaganda” (Their quote) ban arguing that promotion of LGBT rights was harmful to children. (Do you think that the promotion of LGBT rights is harmful to children?)
The Russian Justice Ministry retorted that the “anti-gay propaganda” laws “have the sole purpose of protecting morals and health of children.” Cleary this conflates homosexuality with child abuse.
Do you agree with Putin that children can be “taught that a boy can become a girl and vice versa” is monstrous and “on the verge of a crime against humanity.” Quoted and backed up with video footage by the FT.
in 2015 Russia also introduced a driving ban prohibiting people with “sexual disorders” including people who were transexual or transgender. Do you approve those bans TS?
Do you, TS, agree with the statement of Yelena Mizulina Chairman of The Duma Committee on Family, Women and Children, that “Traditional sexual relations are relations between a man and a woman. These relations need special protection”.
Perhaps you also agree with her stance on decriminalising Domestic Violence catagorised as “first assaults which cause less serious injuries”
So, Just to check TS, do you approve of Putin’s discriminatory stance towards non heterosexual people or not? Pretty straight question, should provide a pretty straight answer (no pun intended)
During both the first period of the 1940 agreement (February 11, 1940, to February 11, 1941) and the second (February 11, 1941, until the Pact was broken), Germany received:
1,600,000 tons of grain
900,000 tons of oil
200,000 tons of cotton
140,000 tons of manganese
200,000 tons of phosphates
20,000 tons of chrome ore
18,000 tons of rubber
100,000 tons of soybeans
500,000 tons of iron ore
300,000 tons of scrap metal and pig iron
2,000 kilograms of platinumNo doubt the Putin loving True Scotsman would have at least supported Hitler’s oppression of gay people.
“I don’t profess to have a “permanent” solution to this or any other problem of capitalism and neither do you”
The Socialist Party have never proposed a solution to the problems of capitalism, because they don’t exist.
Our planet and it’s people are on the edge of obliteration through pollution, global warming, nuclear war, not to mention international and civil way, a global food and energy crisis and ongoing poverty, whilst the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, yet you believe that it’s worthwhile to come up with a put forward but futile adjustments to the condition of things.
Socialism is based on a underpinning knowledge of the nature of capitalistic society, a practical analysis of the reasons why we are on the edge of obliteration and reasonable and well argued solutions to crisis we face. If you don’t want to face up to the hard miles that are needed to help the working class break free from their ideological blinkers, that’s your choice. But to impugn those of us who are working hard to take on that difficult task makes you complicit in the crisis that we face.
The “cost of living crisis” you speak about is actually a “likelihood of existence crisis”. If we don’t (you included) start acting to change the economic system that has produced the crisis, then we may as well kiss our lives and our children and our children’s children’s lives away.
The fact that you have engaged with us and have considered some of the arguments we have put forward, indicates that you have an interest in being part of the solution. We need active and considered people like you to join us in the struggle, why not be part of that work, rather than criticise us?
