Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B1104 – Coming Armed to Parliament Act 1313 Repeal Bill 2017 Watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    27/05/1976

    That is all

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Was that when one Irish MP slapped a Tory for being a lying *******?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    Was that when one Irish MP slapped a Tory for being a lying *******?
    No, much more serious

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    Was that when one Irish MP slapped a Tory for being a lying *******?
    So he deserved to be slapped for being a Tory? If socialists lie do they deserve to be slapped as well? (If I had a penny for every time I could do that...)

    That's not very tolerant of people's different creeds; for a progressive leftist id've thought you'd be against such things; ah hang on, it doesn't apply when people prove your politics wrong does it...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    So he deserved to be slapped for being a Tory? If socialists lie do they deserve to be slapped as well? (If I had a penny for every time I could do that...)

    That's not very tolerant of people's different creeds; for a progressive leftist id've thought you'd be against such things; ah hang on, it doesn't apply when people prove your politics wrong does it...
    So all tories are lying a-holes? Also I never said I agreed with the MP, although I do. The Tory promised all MP present at a event, Bloody Sunday incidentally iirc, would he to speak in the debate, he then refused to let this particular MP speak despite the fact she was there, so she slapped him for being a lying, promise breaking a-hole who refused to listen to someone who he had promised could speak.

    This had nothing to do with politics, and the same would have happened had a Labour MP done this and I would still have agreed with the female MP (whose name I'm unsure on, Des would know).

    Also while not applicable here, tolerance is a two way street, and if a political view is intolerable/hateful/discrimatory I would have no issue in not tolerating it one bit. In fact I would actively oppose that view with all I had.

    Also no one has proved anyone's rigjt or wrong here. Although my advice would be, try not to just copy Jammy, you don't do it nearly as well, and one Jammy is already one too many, but he has a certain charm about it at least.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    So all tories are lying a-holes? Also I never said I agreed with the MP, although I do. The Tory promised all MP present at a event, Bloody Sunday incidentally iirc, would he to speak in the debate, he then refused to let this particular MP speak despite the fact she was there, so she slapped him for being a lying, promise breaking a-hole who refused to listen to someone who he had promised could speak.
    If the justification for violence begins with someone reneging in a promise, I fear where it ends.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    So all tories are lying a-holes? Also I never said I agreed with the MP, although I do. The Tory promised all MP present at a event, Bloody Sunday incidentally iirc, would he to speak in the debate, he then refused to let this particular MP speak despite the fact she was there, so she slapped him for being a lying, promise breaking a-hole who refused to listen to someone who he had promised could speak.

    This had nothing to do with politics, and the same would have happened had a Labour MP done this and I would still have agreed with the female MP (whose name I'm unsure on, Des would know).

    Also while not applicable here, tolerance is a two way street, and if a political view is intolerable/hateful/discrimatory I would have no issue in not tolerating it one bit. In fact I would actively oppose that view with all I had.

    Also no one has proved anyone's rigjt or wrong here. Although my advice would be, try not to just copy Jammy, you don't do it nearly as well, and one Jammy is already one too many, but he has a certain charm about it at least.
    This idea you have in your head that violence is ok if someone fits with what you call "intolerable/hateful/discriminatory" - those trains of thought lead to some very dark places.

    Why did Hitler ban all other political parties? Because they were intolerable to him. Same question Lenin? Same answer.

    Also as Gladstone said, someone breaking a promise shouldn't be justification for violence; that's a sensational claim and I'm shocked that you say it as if it's nothing. I believe I already explained to you that the only hate speech is speech that insinuates violence or is a direct physical threat, only then can violence possibly be justified in self defence.

    I'll admit that the choice of wording in my denouement could've been better; but comparing me to Jammy is nonsense, for one he is a Trump fan and a social conservative; I've done all I can to disassociate myself from Trump and a social liberal, that's only one difference of many, do you just assume that everyone to the right of you is an alt-rightist *insert buzzword here*ist/phobe (delete as appropriate.)

    You're actually the MHoC's only current true believer social justice warrior; you've got my respect in that regard for being honest about your views and originality in the house, however it doesn't change the fact that regressive leftism and identity politics don't make sense and have no real moral, social, economic or scientific justification.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gladstone1885)
    If the justification for violence begins with someone reneging in a promise, I fear where it ends.
    Don't you just hate it when people violate the NAP.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Don't you just hate it when people violate the NAP.
    Yes definitely, I'm surprised a sensible guy like yourself has someone with such a blasé attitude to violence as your deputy leader; I presume they are a John Prescott type figure to your Blair?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    This idea you have in your head that violence is ok if someone fits with what you call "intolerable/hateful/discriminatory" - those trains of thought lead to some very dark places.

    Why did Hitler ban all other political parties? Because they were intolerable to him. Same question Lenin? Same answer.

    Also as Gladstone said, someone breaking a promise shouldn't be justification for violence; that's a sensational claim and I'm shocked that you say it as if it's nothing. I believe I already explained to you that the only hate speech is speech that insinuates violence or is a direct physical threat, only then can violence possibly be justified in self defence.

    I'll admit that the choice of wording in my denouement could've been better; but comparing me to Jammy is nonsense, for one he is a Trump fan and a social conservative; I've done all I can to disassociate myself from Trump and a social liberal, that's only one difference of many, do you just assume that everyone to the right of you is an alt-rightist *insert buzzword here*ist/phobe (delete as appropriate.)

    You're actually the MHoC's only current true believer social justice warrior; you've got my respect in that regard for being honest about your views and originality in the house, however it doesn't change the fact that regressive leftism and identity politics don't make sense and have no real moral, social, economic or scientific justification.
    I answered Gladstone below in regards to your first argument.

    Secondly, I had a similar argument at my CLP over proportional representation, someone's reason for not having it was that Hitler was elected on a PR system. I haven't said we should ban political parties, in fact I think we should have more of them. On a course of over 160 politics students I've been called the biggest democrat/believer in democracy more times than I can count, while this is superficial I think my point is getting across somewhat. The point namely being you are trying to suggest me saying fascism shouldn't be tolerate, is somehow me saying lets ban everyone who isn't Labour.

    Again I answered Gladstone directly and you can see that reply just below this. Although as you mention hate speech, I again mention someone doesn't literally have to say "lynch the queers" to incite violence, an anti-minority narrative fosters what is already an oppressive and discriminatory system against minorities, and helps legitimise violence among certain groups. Someone saying gays are unnatural may not seem to be incite to violence, but when someone hears that and decides that they are unnatural and takes that one step further and starts to beat up gay people when they otherwise may have no if there wasn't such falsehoods spread with the purpose of painting a minority group badly. Hate speech doesn't have to be violent in it's nature to incite violence, and to foster a system of violence.

    Also in regards to assuming everyone to the right of me is an alt-right/nazi who is anti-lgbt/racist/misogynistic. I don't actually think that, it may surprise members of this house but I get on very well with the leadership of my university's conservative society, and have a few friends who identify as and vote tory. Some of them hold views I may consider vaguely harmful in regards to minorities, but by and large they tend to be the kind of conservatives in the vein of Harold Macmillan, who is perhaps my favourite Tory prime minister, not that I have put much thought into the idea of who my favourite tory PM is.

    And in comparing you to Jammy, I wasn't so much referring to your politics, but you style of, I'll call it debate, you and Jammy both have a very forward, aggressive almost, presumptive style of debate, where you put words into mouths to fill in the blanks as you see fit, and try to delegitmise the debater, as well as their argument. I wasn't trying to suggest you are a Trumpite, alt-right nazi don't worry. Also I can understand coming across badly, that is something we all do, and I address that in my reply to Gladstone in regards to where I said I did agree with the MP who slapped the other MP, it was poorly explained/worded on my part. (although I have met Prescott who you mentioned in your reply to Ray, and he was very nice in person, if awfully frail now, but no Prescott's style shall we call it of politics is not one I adhere to)

    I wouldn't personally use the term social justice warrior about myself, merely that I am a strong believer in social justice, a core believe/concept of socialism. The term SJW is heavily loaded and in my opinion like the term liberalism where it can mean many different things, to many different people. I do likewise admire that you stick true to your beliefs so the respect in that regard is mutual, much like how I can respect Thatcher, as you always knew where she stood, and what she meant.

    (Original post by Gladstone1885)
    If the justification for violence begins with someone reneging in a promise, I fear where it ends.
    I don't believe I justified the slapping, merely explained what happened, and the person's own justifications for the action taken. And to explain my agreement, I agreed with her that the MP in question, who happened to be a Tory, was outrageously in the wrong, and was likely refusing to let her talk on the issue due to her political believes. However I think while I can understand that properly most people would have slapped him, I don't agree with that course of action personally, and wouldn't have done the same. I should have made that clearer, and I was perhaps too focused on trying to show Connor that his leaps of logic had no substance.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Yes definitely, I'm surprised a sensible guy like yourself has someone with such a blasé attitude to violence as your deputy leader; I presume they are a John Prescott type figure to your Blair?
    On the contrary, Kay_Winters is a person of great patience and compassion - surely more even-tempered than I. I also dissaprove of the comparison to Blair.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    On the contrary, Kay_Winters is a person of great patience and compassion - surely more even-tempered than I. I also dissaprove of the comparison to Blair.
    It was a compliment, I was praising your slick rhetorical style, spatial leadership (particularly in relation to dangerous radicals like Aph in your cabinet) and generally amenable "nice guy" image.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    It was a compliment, I was praising your slick rhetorical style, spatial leadership (particularly in relation to dangerous radicals like Aph in your cabinet) and generally amenable "nice guy" image.
    "Dangerous radicals" is a bit much coming from you, don't you think? :laugh:
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    :lol: funny joke.

    Would be a no from me (reason is on the line above)
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    "Dangerous radicals" is a bit much coming from you, don't you think? :laugh:
    By that extension, feminists cannot criticise MRAs, I'm not denying that I'm a radical, but right wing radicalism works, leftist authoritarian radicalism doesn't.
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    :lol: funny joke.

    Would be a no from me (reason is on the line above)
    Mate this was 100% serious

    I'm not the kind of person to make jokes in the House!
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    Mate this was 100% serious

    I'm not the kind of person to make jokes in the House!
    Armour =/= Under Armour. Would depend on the definition of Armour outlined in the 1313 act. As Under Armour was founded in 1996, this connotation would not have been accounted for and is therefore rendered acceptable for wear in the house.

    There's my serious reason.
    Spoiler:
    Show

    :eviltongue:
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    Armour =/= Under Armour. Would depend on the definition of Armour outlined in the 1313 act. As Under Armour was founded in 1996, this connotation would not have been accounted for and is therefore rendered acceptable for wear in the house.

    There's my serious reason.
    Spoiler:
    Show


    :eviltongue:

    :lol:

    What about Space Marine Terminators though? What if they feel discriminated against and consider this hate speech and need to run to a room full of crayons and pictures of the Emperor to feel safe?

    #JusticeForSpaceMarines
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    :lol:

    What about Space Marine Terminators though? What if they feel discriminated against and consider this hate speech and need to run to a room full of crayons and pictures of the Emperor to feel safe?

    #JusticeForSpaceMarines
    You now seem very hypocritical from this...
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    Mate this was 100% serious

    I'm not the kind of person to make jokes in the House!
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    You now seem very hypocritical from this...
    Just because you don't know any doesn't mean they don't exist and have feelings.

    Please stop triggering me.

    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    Just because you don't know any doesn't mean they don't exist and have feelings.

    Please stop triggering me.

    I would suggest you re-read the documentation about the levels of reality which the legislation enacted by this house has jurisdiction over before returning to this argument.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 23, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.