Talkin' Politics

[hamiltonjag]

I've enjoyed the political debates on this forum. By and large they've been good natured...... but I've noticed (including with myself) that occasionally the red mists of anger descend and the whole thing becomes in danger of being adminned-out and locked. Got me thinking..... is there really a point to discussing politics or religion on an online forum? Great topics. Great reading....... but do any of us think we're ever gonna change anyone's opinions? Let's face it..... if you're a tory you're always going to be a tory. If you're a labour voter you're always going to be a labour voter. Same with the nats. Though I'm pretty sure we'll see a lot of lib-dem voters jumping ship now. Anyhoo....... just the thoughts of a sleep-deprived Socialist.

[Woodstock Jag]

I don't think it's as clear cut as you think. Most people, even when the "red mists" descend as you put it, do actually take on board elements of what those who disagree with them are saying. Whilst they won't perhaps acknowledge it in the heat of discussion (the main problem with the internet is that you can completely miss the tone of what someone's saying, which radically affects the response) they often will consider it in their own views towards a certain policy formation or in the way they look at future events wrt the various political parties.

 

Will it change the world? Probably not.

Will it change the minds of those most likely to be contributing? Less likely.

Will it determine who has "won" the political argument in the big bad world? Less likely still.

Does it serve as an acid test of general political approaches and feelings towards the present political situation? Arguably.

 

The "if you're a Tory you're always going to be a Tory", "if you're Labour etc etc" is (perhaps obviously) not true because we get different election results that clearly can't just be put down to people moving house! What I would say though is that more people who swing vote don't hold the polar positions on an argument, so are less likely to feel the urge to give their opinion. Those that throw their opinion out-there are more likely to be set in their ways precisely because they feel confident enough in their beliefs to present them to others they know disagree with them.

 

I've only ever voted in two elections, and I voted for two different parties in each of them. Next year in the Scottish Elections, I'm far from decided who I'm going to vote for: it depends on the stats of my constituency. What I do know, though, is that I'll seriously consider doing anything to stop Labour winning a seat, even if that means voting SNP for tactical reasons. A year ago, I couldn't have brought myself to do that, and I probably still won't, but if I feel it's the only way my vote will count because of constituency realities, I'd rather have an SNP administration in Scotland than that absolute abomination Iain Gray as First Minister.

[Blackpool Jags]

A good question you set there HJ. Got to admit, in my own case, that I just can't help myself sometimes .

 

Ok, a final line of mischief from me.

 

Tomorrow night on E4 (Freeview) there's what looks like an excellent programme on at 9pm: "The God Delusion" introduced by the country's most prominent atheist, Richard Dawkins. The preview includes the poignant quote: "In a world without religion, good people will do good things and evil people will do evil things. For good people to do evil things, it takes religion". Just love that.

 

Advance apologies for getting that wedge in. The red mist of atheism descended for a moment then.

 

A genuine from me.

[Tam]

A good question you set there HJ. Got to admit, in my own case, that I just can't help myself sometimes .

 

Ok, a final line of mischief from me.

 

Tomorrow night on E4 (Freeview) there's what looks like an excellent programme on at 9pm: "The God Delusion" introduced by the country's most prominent atheist, Richard Dawkins. The preview includes the poignant quote: "In a world without religion, good people will do good things and evil people will do evil things. For good people to do evil things, it takes religion". Just love that.

 

Advance apologies for getting that wedge in. The red mist of atheism descended for a moment then.

 

A genuine from me.

Its a re-run and very watchable BJ.

[Blackpool Jags]

Its a re-run and very watchable BJ.

 

Cheers Tam.

[B.C.G. JAG]

I'll quickly add that The God Delusion is a fantastic read, informed, funny and positively life affirming. I'll be watching that.

 

Anyway, back on topic, I think a few people on here have me pegged as an out and out Labour voter but that's not true. My uni dissertation was a dissection of the state of the left wing in Britain then, with the hand in date the same as the General Election that swept Blair in. In short, I was completely scathing of the the New Labour experiment, but the reasons why they were trying to reposition the party was obvious. The recommendation was for the left to vote Labour, but with no illusions. In a very Marxist sense, you accept that real change won't come from the ballot box, but it would be pretty stupid to not engage with the process, and Labour are best placed to represent the labour movement within a corrupting system. If a credible, more left leaning, alternative comes up, well, we'll discuss that then.

 

However, too many things about New Labour turned my stomach, the 'illegal' invasion of Iraq being the last straw for me. I couldn't bring myself to vote for them again. Remember when we had that election with National, Local, European and god knows what else in there? I voted for a different party at each turn, a mish mash of LibDem, Militant, Green and SNP. I think it would be fair to say that I was a bit undecided and trying to share the wealth of my vote.

 

However, since then, we have had the return of The Tories. Perhaps the one thing that could be said about all those wild choices in that election is that they were all anti-Tory. Am I anti- Tory? Absolutely. Their ideology is diametrically opposed to the interests of ordinary working people. This election has galvanised my resolve somewhat and now that we see that the LibDems are willing to prop up a Tory regime, then they have lost all sympathy from me. When it comes to the next UK General Election, like many millions of others, I won't flim flam, I'll vote for Labour.

 

As for the Scottish elections, I'm undecided, but I like the idea of us going our own way. I suspect if we did break away, future elections in Scotland would be fought between left leaning parties - the Tories would simply implode. Council Elections? Again, up for debate, but I am hugely encouraged by my friends in Melbourne who have just elected their first Green member.

 

Sadly, tactical voting is probably the way I will always go which is something I despise. I'd love to vote with my heart, but the tactics of the day are always paramount, and they are always going to be anti-Tory. I'm open enough to new ideas, but never from the right wing, unless I get possessed by Satan himself.

[alx]

You don't have to change your vote to change your opinion on lots of things. I disagree with the party I vote for on loads of issues. People who are activists are often too far gone in the machine to think rationally. In my opinion the hard left, and ideological free-marketeers on the other side, are connected up to their own wee mental 'Matrix' and never change their minds on anything. Until they grow up!!!!!! (oops snidey comment slipped out there)

[alx]

The preview includes the poignant quote: "In a world without religion, good people will do good things and evil people will do evil things. For good people to do evil things, it takes religion".

 

I thought that was a great quote as well, provided that 'religion' also includes Imperialism, Fascism, and Marxism.

[twinny]

Its a re-run and very watchable BJ.

 

Off-topic - sorry!

 

I've heard it was awful, with absolutely no balance at all. I read an article about the show that described Dawkins as "the voice of open mindedness". I don't think I've ever met a less open minded person (not that I've met Dawkins), his inability to understand anybody else's viewpoint but his own is staggering. You get religious extremists but you also get extremist atheists, I don't really understand why he can't let anybody have their own point of view, and considers them an evolutionary error should they have an opinion that differs from his.

 

Actually, just realised I'm talking about his documentary on faith schools that was on the other night, and not the God delusion, however my opinion of the man remains unchanged.

[B.C.G. JAG]

Off-topic - sorry!

 

I've heard it was awful, with absolutely no balance at all. I read an article about the show that described Dawkins as "the voice of open mindedness". I don't think I've ever met a less open minded person (not that I've met Dawkins), his inability to understand anybody else's viewpoint but his own is staggering. You get religious extremists but you also get extremist atheists, I don't really understand why he can't let anybody have their own point of view, and considers them an evolutionary error should they have an opinion that differs from his.

 

Actually, just realised I'm talking about his documentary on faith schools that was on the other night, and not the God delusion, however my opinion of the man remains unchanged.

Without having seen the programme, the book goes to great lengths to systematically tackle all the other viewpoints and, in my opinion successfully tackle them. It's inaccurate to say that he doesn't take on other people's ideas as he fully answers his critics of the first book in the revised second edition. Yes, he's uncompromising, but then, why should he be apologetic about that.

[Woodstock Jag]

On the subject of Dawkins, he makes a lot of valid points, but his philosophy is far from infallible and it doesn't stop me thinking he's a prick.

 

And I say this as someone who used to be mildly religious, but who is now somewhat agnostic/deistic.

[Collins Out!]

I found 'The God Delusion' to be an awful book. I was looking forward to reading it too, but it was pure pish.

[B.C.G. JAG]

On the subject of Dawkins, he makes a lot of valid points, but his philosophy is far from infallible and it doesn't stop me thinking he's a prick.

 

And I say this as someone who used to be mildly religious, but who is now somewhat agnostic/deistic.

 

That means you're still mildly religious.

[Woodstock Jag]

That means you're still mildly religious.

 

No it doesn't. Religion requires the belief in and worship of one or more Gods. I don't worship any God, but am open to the possibility of a supernatural creative force. I hold that if it is the case, it is on a deistic basis and not a theistic one.

[hamiltonjag]

I found 'The God Delusion' to be an awful book. I was looking forward to reading it too, but it was pure pish.

I was gonna give it a go. What did you find pish about it?

[B.C.G. JAG]

No it doesn't. Religion requires the belief in and worship of one or more Gods. I don't worship any God, but am open to the possibility of a supernatural creative force. I hold that if it is the case, it is on a deistic basis and not a theistic one.

 

It's the word supernatural that makes that statement fall down. What I think you're essentially saying is that you don't subscribe to any organised religion as such, but are open to the idea of a creator (creative force). I don't really have a problem with that, it's just that it still doesn't answer the regressive question of where this creator/force came from. Which then supposes that it exists outwith the natural laws of the universe, ie supernatural, which is as good as calling it a God (just not necessarily one with a white flowing beard). It's still just a convenient answer, which in reality actually just throws up even more questions. I'm not saying anyone has an answer - it's just that I'm personally hugely unsatisfied with the deistic answer, and prefer not to use words like supernatural. But yes, I see where you're coming from. Well, at least on this, if not politically!

[Woodstock Jag]

It's the word supernatural that makes that statement fall down. What I think you're essentially saying is that you don't subscribe to any organised religion as such, but are open to the idea of a creator (creative force). I don't really have a problem with that, it's just that it still doesn't answer the regressive question of where this creator/force came from. Which then supposes that it exists outwith the natural laws of the universe, ie supernatural, which is as good as calling it a God (just not necessarily one with a white flowing beard). It's still just a convenient answer, which in reality actually just throws up even more questions. I'm not saying anyone has an answer - it's just that I'm personally hugely unsatisfied with the deistic answer, and prefer not to use words like supernatural. But yes, I see where you're coming from. Well, at least on this, if not politically!

 

I agree with most of that, and I perhaps should have been clearer when I described myself as "agnostic/deist". I don't have any strong inclinations to a positive statement of belief in anything "supernatural" (I use that word merely out of convenience and not because of its accuracy). What I have eliminated as plausible is a theistic basis of an interventionist creative force, hence the premise of deism remains plausible, but unlikely.

[Collins Out!]

I was gonna give it a go. What did you find pish about it?

 

I got it out the library about a year ago and lasted until chapter two. It was childish and dailymailish, I was very disappointed. I will really have to look at it again, but it almost seemed like an atheists guide for stupid people.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think Dawkins is an intelligent guy and has a point, but the book was pish.

[hamiltonjag]

Lovin this.

 

I can't imagine anything like this would happen on a Rangers or Celtic fan's forum.

 

Religion -

 

"we hate papes/currant buns"

 

"aye you're right"

[hamiltonjag]

I got it out the library about a year ago and lasted until chapter two. It was childish and dailymailish, I was very disappointed. I will really have to look at it again, but it almost seemed like an atheists guide for stupid people.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think Dawkins is an intelligent guy and has a point, but the book was pish.

Fair do's mate. So what you're saying is it's pitched at people with tabloid reading ages? The very people who are easily fooled by talk of invisible gods. To me, that's fair enough.

[B.C.G. JAG]

I got it out the library about a year ago and lasted until chapter two. It was childish and dailymailish, I was very disappointed. I will really have to look at it again, but it almost seemed like an atheists guide for stupid people.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think Dawkins is an intelligent guy and has a point, but the book was pish.

 

I think you need a bit more than one chapter before you outright dismiss a book, and the first chapter is written in broad strokes to introduce his argument. Saying that, I'd say that Dawkins presents an accessible debate throughout. At times he speaks almost painfully simplistically when answering his detractors - some people find this a bit patronising or arrogant, I tend to just find it very funny - I guess it depends on how much he offends your own sensibilities.

 

I'm reading, very slowly, The Greatest Show On Earth, and again, it's written in, at times, very simple terms. But, at least in this book, that's rather the point - to present something that can get a little complicated as easily as possible, without skimping on the detail. Again, I find it laugh out loud funny, but that doesn't mean his style is for everyone.

 

However, both books are much needed, particularly when Creationism has such a grip on the world's only superpower. We already have School's in the UK which teach Creationism as fact, and Evolution as a faith. Whether or not you think he's a pr***, he's standing up against some much bigger pr**** and for that deserves some support.

[Blackpool Jags]

In a confessional sort of way, I have to admit to getting rid of my imaginary friend only in my late teens.

[jaggybunnet]

In a confessional sort of way, I have to admit to getting rid of my imaginary friend only in my late teens.

 

 

bloody hell, that long ago and was it gordon brown?

[Blackpool Jags]

bloody hell, that long ago and was it gordon brown?

 

If only. Last year before I managed to get that bugger oot ma heid.

[Lambies Lost Doo]

I think starting threads with "Get Them TF" is not what this forum is about as it's far to much of a personal opinion and not expressed as eloquently as it could be. You can debate most things, ask questions etc and it's all in an orderly fashion. I go on the Tartan Army Message Board and politics threads are full of nationalist vitriol calling people traitors while the religious stuff tends to turn into accusations of bigotry and sectarianism. I think it's all good on here as long as people don't make it personal.