Election prediction time

[Sampson]

2 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, whether it's political or not. Incidentally, my "political learnings" as you put it are none of your business so carry on surmising. 

Huh? Where did anyone say you weren’t entitled to your opinion? 

 

Huh? You’re the one making your political leanings other people’s business by constantly and openly posting political commentary on a public forum. It just makes you saying you don’t vote and aren’t leaning towards right wing politics hard to take your posts seriously when you clearly do. 

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

1 hour ago, Dunge said:

I don’t see any point in answering this to be honest. The fact that you’re asking means that you haven’t understood what I’ve written and I don’t think I, personally, can express it any clearer. Perhaps others can.

I asked the question specifically to try and understand what you’ve written and reduce the likelihood that we talk past each other. In order for a meaningful discussion to take place on any subject, there has to be some set of axioms that the participants agree on, that is a set of statements that are a priori deemed to be true and, at least for the purposes of the discussion itself, do not require any additional proof.

 

The problem appears to be that neither side is able to produce a set of such statements which the other side accepts, which means the resulting conversations tend not to get off the ground. One such axiom might be “It is possible to change one’s gender through surgical intervention.” Another might be “Those with gender dysphoria were born in the wrong body.” There are many more of course. If two people agree that these are indeed true, the conversation can continue with ideas that are contingent on those assumptions, for example what should the age limit be, what terminology should be used to describe such procedures and those who have them etc. 

 

But clearly not everybody accepts them as self-evidently true statements. The word “mutilation” is only inappropriate if you accept certain propositions as true, which it appears Braverman does not. She has a different set of axioms on which she bases the rest of her arguments, one of which is probably something like “It is not possible to change one’s gender through surgical intervention”. Another might be “Gender dysphoria requires psychological treatment rather than surgery.”

 

If you accept the first set of axioms, then Braverman appears to be a monstrous bully who would deny vulnerable trans people life-saving treatments. But if you accept the second, the very thought of surgically removing the reproductive organs of somebody suffering from some form of mental illness is truly barbaric, and the word “mutilation” barely even describes the horrors of what is going on. 

[David Hankey]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And likewise when you state an opinion on a public forum, people can and will state their own opinions about it.

And likewise when your opinions differ it doesn't mean to say they are wrong.

[Sampson]

2 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

And likewise when your opinions differ it doesn't mean to say they are wrong.

What are you even talking about? When did anyone say anything about your opinions being wrong? People are questioning your opinions and you’re allowed to question that questioning, that’s how debating should work. 
 

You can’t just expect to put things out there and get defensive whenever anything you say is questioned though. 

 

Edited 9 July by Sampson

[The Doctor]

1 minute ago, MarshallForEngland said:

I asked the question specifically to try and understand what you’ve written and reduce the likelihood that we talk past each other. In order for a meaningful discussion to take place on any subject, there has to be some set of axioms that the participants agree on, that is a set of statements that are a priori deemed to be true and, at least for the purposes of the discussion itself, do not require any additional proof.

 

The problem appears to be that neither side is able to produce a set of such statements which the other side accepts, which means the resulting conversations tend not to get off the ground. One such axiom might be “It is possible to change one’s gender through surgical intervention.” Another might be “Those with gender dysphoria were born in the wrong body.” There are many more of course. If two people agree that these are indeed true, the conversation can continue with ideas that are contingent on those assumptions, for example what should the age limit be, what terminology should be used to describe such procedures and those who have them etc. 

 

But clearly not everybody accepts them as self-evidently true statements. The word “mutilation” is only inappropriate if you accept certain propositions as true, which it appears Braverman does not. She has a different set of axioms on which she bases the rest of her arguments, one of which is probably something like “It is not possible to change one’s gender through surgical intervention”. Another might be “Gender dysphoria requires psychological treatment rather than surgery.”

 

If you accept the first set of axioms, then Braverman appears to be a monstrous bully who would deny vulnerable trans people life-saving treatments. But if you accept the second, the very thought of surgically removing the reproductive organs of somebody suffering from some form of mental illness is truly barbaric, and the word “mutilation” barely even describes the horrors of what is going on. 

so the problem with that is that medicine goes with what works, not on the value judgements of individuals. the most effective evidence based treatment for gender dysphoria is transition, so really it doesn't matter if someone with no expertise in the topic thinks it should be treated with psychological interventions.

 

the other thing you appear to have missed is the concept of consent. the framing of "surgically removing the reproductive organs of somebody suffering from some form of mental illness" is deliberately emotive and conjures images of a Mengele style experiment, when nothing could be further from the truth, people knowingly and freely consent to the procedure having jumped through all the hoops to qualify for it.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

And likewise when your opinions differ it doesn't mean to say they are wrong.

Broadly true, but it would be very situation dependent.

 

For instance, Danny Ward being a Premiership level goalkeeper.

[David Hankey]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Broadly true, but it would be very situation dependent.

 

For instance, Danny Ward being a Premiership level goalkeeper.

And an international, don't forget.

[Daggers]

Today the PopCons held an event.

 

William Hague went to Blair's Future of Britain event instead to discuss how technology may impact our lives.

 

He said he "declined an invitation to the PopCons event as he had decided he 'didn't need lessons in popularity from a load of people who had just lost their seats'."

[Dahnsouff]

Go to let my son in from his work experience, walk away for 5 minutes and come back there has been a bun fight.

Love this place.  

[StanSP]

2 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Go to let my son in from his work experience, walk away for 5 minutes and come back there has been a bun fight.

Love this place.  

Why did it take you 5 mins to let your son in . 

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, StanSP said:

Why did it take you 5 mins to let your son in . 

I have a very long hallway

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

Just now, The Doctor said:

so the problem with that is that medicine goes with what works, not on the value judgements of individuals. the most effective evidence based treatment for gender dysphoria is transition, so really it doesn't matter if someone with no expertise in the topic thinks it should be treated with psychological interventions.

 

the other thing you appear to have missed is the concept of consent. the framing of "surgically removing the reproductive organs of somebody suffering from some form of mental illness" is deliberately emotive and conjures images of a Mengele style experiment, when nothing could be further from the truth, people knowingly and freely consent to the procedure having jumped through all the hoops to qualify for it.

This is a fantastic example of what I am talking about. Your statement that “the most effective evidence based treatment for gender dysphoria is transition” contains several of these axioms. The very concept of ”trans” is not even universally accepted, and not all who do accept that it is theoretically possible to be “assigned” the wrong gender accept that surgery is the appropriate remedy. In fact, those who disagree with you may well believe completely the opposite of those things and therefore deem you and others advancing such ideas to be truly dangerous. This is unfortunately how most debates on the big topics in British politics go, as neither side can identify where exactly the conversation should start from. It doesn’t naturally occur to you (by which I mean anybody) that others have a very different set of assumptions on which their arguments are based, and are perhaps just as motivated by noble causes as the next person, they just work from a different set of axioms. 

 

The argument about consent is an interesting one but I feel it would dominate the thread and lead to another closure. Do feel free to DM me if you would like to discuss it further. Here I am a bit concerned that if we drift too far away from Braverman and the current political climate in the United Kingdom, the thread will end up getting closed. 

[Daggers]

[FoxesDeb]

39 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, whether it's political or not. Incidentally, my "political learnings" as you put it are none of your business so carry on surmising. 

You are posting your opinions on a politics thread on a public forum, you're hardly trying to hide them  Btw you mean 'leanings' 

[Thefox81]

56 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

Thing is they'll still be there next year and the years after.

You're so boring. Accept it you lost and you lost handsomly

[westernpark]

Ashworth announced as new head of Labour thinktank. I hope he continues to live and base himself out of Leicester, we will need him. 

[David Hankey]

11 minutes ago, Thefox81 said:

You're so boring. Accept it you lost and you lost handsomly

I have not lost. This is the second GE that I have spoiled by ballot simply because I feel none are worth supporting.

Incidentally, handsomly has an 'e' in it.

[jgtuk]

13 minutes ago, Thefox81 said:

You're so boring. Accept it you lost and you lost handsomly

What about my potholes though 

 

EDIT - it’s ok, Jeremy just phoned me, him and Dianne are coming first thing in the morning to fix them. 

[Bellend Sebastian]

17 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

Gonna guess that there were indeed some fake candidates. 

You'd think he'd be used to being accused of impropriety by now and be a bit more relaxed about it.

 

I watched the Mark Matlock interview from GB News and I can confirm beyond reasonable doubt that it is with a bloke calling himself Mark Matlock. He even looks A BIT like the bloke in the picture. I'm just delighted that he looks so well after his health emergency at the weekend. 

 

Unlike myself, Byline Times are not prepared to give Reform the benefit of the doubt and even after this irrefutable proof was produced are saying there are 75 Reform candidates with apparently no internet footprint, which I'm sure is fine

 

[Zear0]

1 hour ago, Dahnsouff said:

I have a very long hallway

Bloody Tory

[Dahnsouff]

2 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Bloody Tory

Well did they make a terrible mess during the head removal and mounting.

[David Hankey]

51 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

You are posting your opinions on a politics thread on a public forum, you're hardly trying to hide them  Btw you mean 'leanings' 

FYI, this is a members' forum not a public one.

[FoxesDeb]

2 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

FYI, this is a members' forum not a public one.

Erm, it's definitely public, you don't need to be a member to view it

[Daggers]

3 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Erm, it's definitely public, you don't need to be a member to view it

You don’t need to be a member to post in it either. 

[Parafox]

1 hour ago, StanSP said:

Why did it take you 5 mins to let your son in . 

 

1 hour ago, Dahnsouff said:

I have a very long hallway, which happens to pass through the wine cellar

 

Fixed