• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Reuters Fact check: London’s Cenotaph war memorial was not defaced on 3 June

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #61
    Originally posted by Excursion UK View Post
    Somewhere in Cornwall, can't remember where but may be Mousehole, there is a plaque commemorating the occasion when a number of residents were seized by barbary pirates and, presumably, taken to North Africa to be sold into slavery.
    I saw something in the Isles of Scilly IIRC (possibly it was in the museum rather than a plaque).

    Comment


      #62
      Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
      Let's take a few case that have been mentioned here.

      Edward Colston - on one hand he was a philanthropist, on the other he was a slave trader
      Henry VIII - on one hand he founded the Church of England, on the other hand he persecuted Catholics and treated his wives badly
      Cromwell - on one hand he overthrew Charles I, on the other hand he persecuted Catholics
      Churchill - on one hand he led the UK to victory in WW2, on the other hand he led the UK as a power suppressing its colonies.

      An argument can be made for each of these cases independently to retain or remove statues. There is no slippery slope here. Argue each on its merits.

      Would those be the Catholics that persecuted everyone else?

      That would be the Churchill who signed the Atlantic charter?
      Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

      Comment


        #63
        Originally posted by vetran View Post
        Would those be the Catholics that persecuted everyone else?

        That would be the Churchill who signed the Atlantic charter?
        As I said, arguments on either side. There's no "right" answer. It's a matter of judgment.

        Having said that, I doubt that all of the Catholics who were persecuted were engaged in persecuting others. Most were probably just getting on with their lives. Same for the Protestants persecuted by Mary I.

        Comment


          #64
          Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
          Simple argument: reductio ad absurdum fallacy to avoid the issue. Is that the next line of defence after abandoning the slippery slope?
          Yep!

          Comment


            #65
            Originally posted by Paralytic View Post
            Slippery slopes should be banned. From here on in, all slopes are to applied be with slip-proof coating. Until slip-proof coatings are banned, at which point, slopes will be allowed to go upwards only.
            Even easier. Change slopes to steps. Get H back to edumacate us all.

            Comment


              #66
              Originally posted by ladymuck View Post
              Even easier. Change slopes to steps. Get H back to edumacate us all.

              yea hah!

              Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

              Comment


                #67
                Originally posted by darmstadt View Post
                While the UK has a racist PM, nothing will get changed:

                There's plenty more of his racist, sexist and homophobic comments out there....
                Hear me out but, maybe, do you think *might* possible that an obviously satirical article, whose sole purpose was to mock the establishment whilst they were flying around playing "white saviours" in Africa, perhaps would have used inflammatory language to make a point?
                Last edited by thelastrosbif; 9 June 2020, 02:19.

                Comment


                  #68
                  Did Chris Morris turn out to be a paedophile enabler or was that Brasseye thing another cunning ruse? Damn it's all so confusing!

                  Comment


                    #69
                    Originally posted by thelastrosbif View Post
                    Hear me out but, maybe, do you think *might* possible that an obviously satirical article, whose sole purpose was to mock the establishment whilst they were flying around playing "white saviours" in Africa, perhaps would have used inflammatory language to make a point?
                    So all the other articles he has written using racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. language were also satirical? This is a man who has been sacked for lying in the press and parliament. If you believe Johnson then you probably believe Trump, Bolsonaro, Hopkins, Farage, etc...and all the stories in the Sunday Sport
                    Brexit is having a wee in the middle of the room at a house party because nobody is talking to you, and then complaining about the smell.

                    Comment


                      #70
                      Originally posted by darmstadt View Post
                      So all the other articles he has written using racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. language were also satirical? This is a man who has been sacked for lying in the press and parliament. If you believe Johnson then you probably believe Trump, Bolsonaro, Hopkins, Farage, etc...and all the stories in the Sunday Sport
                      Well if you bring them all up and have a read I'm sure you could argue that, yes. His entire schtick was mildly-offensive satire opinion pieces.

                      Is he ignorant, lazy and a relatively crap prime minister - absolutely - but if you're going to criticise someone it's better use proper facts & political activities instead of useless twitter level crap out that utterly diminishes the impact of actual racism/homophobia when we see it.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X