miga

Saffron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > miga Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Saffron Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > There is no nuanced view on FGM. The clue is in > the name. Just because your view on the subject is black and white doesn't mean that a third, considered view doesn't exist, or that GG does not hold such a view. I won't summarise it, it's easy enough to find, but she is very far from "endorsing FGM"! As for the idea that GG has a purely biological view of gender, I'm pretty sure she has been saying something very different for decades. I think her point was that it's the experiences of growing up female that make a woman, in addition to the physiology. And actually, by changing physiology in the transition, it's the physical that is mimicked. Something along those lines, and a whole heap besides. She is a shit stirrer, I don't agree with a lot of what she says, but her views have been reduced to a caricature, which is a shame.

Stole this from a great blog.

They committed themselves to "balancing the books" (with Labour's backing). They can't/won't cut pensions. They can't/won't cut child benefit. Meanwhile (pensions, baby boomers etc.) the welfare bill keeps on increasing. Not many places they can find the mythical ?12bn. Rock and a hard place.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Didn't she also one time say that rape wasn't that > big a deal too? I heard she bites off bats' heads like Ozzy Osbourne, than meets in the forest with her coven to dance under moonlight. Get the kindling!

Saffron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > She's previously endorsed FGM. Her view on FGM is a lot more nuanced than that. > I think it would be a disservice to women everywhere, to think that it's only 2Xs and some reproductive plumbing that makes us women! I don't think she ever said that.

Exactly, there's a difference between what you or I feel is OK to say ('cause we're nice guys and don't want to hurt people's feelings), and shutting people up.

She has form on this issue stretching back to the mid 90s. She hasn't changed her thinking on the subject - and what makes her entertaining and newsworthy is that she has an explosive and colourful way of expressing ideas. So I guess the issue of hurting people's feelings is a distraction from the trashing out of ideas. AFAICT she didn't claim those people should/shouldn't feel a particular way, or undergo plastic surgery, she merely said that she doesn't think they're women. So the discussion is about gender, and she has valid and interesting ideas on the subject (whether you agree or not). Her way of expressing ideas comes from a showy, firebrand, academic tradition (to sound like a wanker - maybe even a tradition of Socratic questioning?), and isn't it interesting that young zealots in academic institutions are the ones who want to shut that tradition down on grounds of "hurt feelings". As far as "males being born into female bodies" - the bits and pieces I read on "trans-issues" in mainstream media always seem to be about blokes deciding they want to be women...which I also find interesting.

Louisa - I think no-one is beyond questioning. The whole "no platform" thing was meant to shut down things like BNP activists dragging debates down with basic prejudice - and I disagree with that too, by the way. In this instance though, she hasn't said anything hateful, it's merely her opinion (if I understand it) that gender isn't something you decide on. I guess she in particular must have felt over the last few decades the atmosphere in universities shifting away from talking about women's experiences to the experiences of men who want to be/feel like women, while a whole host of practical issues for women haven't been sorted out (violence, equal pay, home work, reproductive rights etc.).

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Every economic system has black markets. There's > no getting away from that. Even the worst police > states have them. I would even say, especially the worst police states have them. When you tell people that blue jeans aren't ideologically suitable, blue jeans become very valuable. I bet there's someone making a pretty penny selling Levis in Pyongyang right now. The trick is to make enough people believe they can have lovely things, and to legitimise the process of acquiring them. Sure, you can have a massive telly, at 50% interest. Everyone's happy.

Sure, and that's a clearly reasoned standpoint, and in this instance perhaps the right one. The attitude to health and safety is still very different, but that will come with time and money. Meanwhile, they're being brought in to build roads, mines, civic infrastructure all over Eastern Europe, Africa etc. winning contracts that would have previously gone to American or European firms. Part of that is down to the fact that Chinese firms will often lend money cheaply for the projects they're running, but regardless of the financial motivations, it's fair to say they're becoming an exporter of knowledge.

dogcatdog Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > so lets look at this > > you are perhaps 80/85% sure as to what the > probable response would be > > I am probabaly 75% sure what your follow up would > be to any comment I make. > > and so it goes > > Do we really want to get into this ? > > Say what you want and we will leave it at that I think you might be implying that their engineering/science isn't up to much, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. I think that may have been true 20 years ago, but not any more.

So, so far so so-so.

dogcatdog Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Luckily the money is from China and the Reactor is > of French design rather than the other way round Why?

Good map(s) DaveR.

It's just guesswork. I'm assuming most seats in the UK have similar age structures, with a few outliers. The other assumption is that young people are more likely to have their views align with Corbyn than older people. I have no data to back this up, but if you do to prove the opposite, I'm all ears.

I'm not sure where I stand on the sugar and fat tax. Obesity affects the poorest most. Adding a meaningful tax will definitely discourage those with less money, so in that sense it should work. But, unhealthy food is also cheaper and quicker (you can get a meal for a pound or two from a chicken shop), and in that sense suits low waged shift workers etc. who manage to feed families in this way. By making it a bit more expensive people get taxed, but their habits don't change because the causes don't get addressed. Might it actually exacerbate the situation, further entrenching bad, but often understandable, habits.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Which is a 'relatively' small population > geographically dispersed or in terms of students > largely converted already? There's very roughly about the same number of 20-35 as >60, about 20% of population overall. Sure, they're geographically dispersed, but in the close seats it could make a difference if the lot that doesn't vote turns out. This was apropos of the "winning on social media" comment, and you're right, that's meaningless if the chatterers don't vote.

Or they could make new votes by coaxing out some of the 50% of 25-34 year olds who don't currently vote.

BME people are only a cogent group in the sense that they're not the dominant or majority ethnic group here, but of course there are huge differences and different prejudices that exist within that large range of people; there's no logical reason to expect that just because a person has experienced prejudice they will themselves be prejudice-free.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > miga Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Jah Lush Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > > > > http://i1369.photobucket.com/albums/ag237/jahlushh > > > > > > > > > ead/12109266_10153711593138493_2628899368328293186 > > > > > > _n_zps8lr5usba.jpg > > > > It's a darn shame to see people lose jobs, but > are > > you sure the kind of steel produced in the shut > > plants would have been suitable for that > purpose? > > IIRC there are many different types and it > isn't > > trivial to move from producing one type to > > another. Just a thought. > > Is relying on Chinese steel a good thing though. > Surely > they'll put the price up once they get a > monopoly. > > British Steel used to be high quality IIRC It's not "better" or "worse" but different types for different purposes, with different production stages and different compositions (as it's an alloy). I'm not a metallurgist, though. As to whether it's right or wrong that we're happy for others to do not only our factory line production, but also increasingly "knowledge work (engineering, construction, IT)"; I think it's a disaster. In fact, I think that knowledge is very undervalued in our society.

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://i1369.photobucket.com/albums/ag237/jahlushh > ead/12109266_10153711593138493_2628899368328293186 > _n_zps8lr5usba.jpg It's a darn shame to see people lose jobs, but are you sure the kind of steel produced in the shut plants would have been suitable for that purpose? IIRC there are many different types and it isn't trivial to move from producing one type to another. Just a thought.

Ethical shopping...it's a minefield. Exaggeration, I know, but once you set off on that road, and even if you succeed in stopping your use of Siemens, VW, Nike, Adidas, Nestle, EMI etc. etc., do you then stop paying tax, or purchasing anything with VAT because of God knows what nefarious thing HM Government is doing with the tax ??

What they did was unethical, but on your last point, is there any evidence that the NO emissions from VW diesels are any worse than other manufacturers? The car industry as a whole seems to have convinced Brits that diesel cars are cleaner (BlueMotion, Ecotec blah blah), which they are when you look at CO2 emissions only. But the technology is surely fairly similar - is there really that much variation between NO emissions from VW or Peugeot diesels?

Stay locally based dude, fight the good fight.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 4 kids with only 100K household income? Might have > to put the ski trips on hold (or at least > downgrade to Italy). ED with a household income of 100k....the holder of this parody account needs to fire their fact checker.