WiseOwl182

1 hour ago, redbig said:

Strawman ? Nope, no idea. 50 is fine for the 50 bit, as it would be in the 70 bit if the experts reduced it. Or I could just nerd it up like you quoting absolute nonsense because you think your driving skills preclude you from such decreases. 

 

It is everyone else's problem, not mine, since if the 70 limit was reduced I'd have no problems with that. But feel free to quote how many top gear magazines you've read which should give you a pass from the upcoming speed limit cut.

But the limit in the Rotherham section isn't 50 currently, it's 70. 50 is not fine in a 70, it's overly cautious and causes other cars to make manoeuvres. It displays a lack of driving competence.

1 hour ago, Halibut said:

If people have a religiously inspired anti-gay stance I believe they're entitled to that stance. 

I don't believe such people have a right to discriminate against gays though.

Yes, so you're supporting the LGBT rights side of the argument. No matter how you try to word it, you can only support one side in a conflicting argument.

1 hour ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Who is agreeing that homosexuality is wrong?

You tell me. I was posing the question.

1 hour ago, Halibut said:

I support the rights of  those who say their religious beliefs tell them homosexuality is wrong to a) believe that,  b) say it and c) protest at schools.

I believe they're wrong and would happily argue the point with them.

So therefore, when it comes to religious views Vs equality for homosexuals, the latter wins your support. 

24 minutes ago, Halibut said:

Conservative, old school versions of those faiths seek to read the books that way. More forward looking schools of Christianity and Islam accept it, as do many followers of both faiths.

Which category would you put the school protesters in?

Are conservative religious beliefs less valid?

Who do you agree with and support - those who say their religious beliefs mean homosexuality is wrong, or those who believe homosexuality is fine?

1 hour ago, Halibut said:

You seem to be making the false assumption that all religion is invested with the belief that homosexuality is wrong.

I don't know about all religions, but certainly the Quran and Bible teach against homosexuality.

1 hour ago, Top Cats Hat said:

I don’t have to.

 

I can agree with both simultaneously.

No you can't. Either you agree that homosexuality is wrong, or you disagree. You can't support two opposing arguments equally.

26 minutes ago, Halibut said:

Which principle are you claiming I disagree with?

That homosexuality is wrong.

17 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Nope, you are still confused.

 

You seem to be channelling James123R with your inability to get to grips with simple concepts that everyone else doesn’t have a problem understanding.

Nope, I'm not. You just can't admit which viewpoint you're most in agreement with, and therefore the one you support more.

Just now, Halibut said:

You're wrong. I value both highly and equally. 

You support the freedom of those religious beliefs, but you disagree with the principle, whereas on homosexuality you support both the freedom of expression to support it, and the principle itself.  Ergo your true support is with the latter.

2 minutes ago, Halibut said:

You're not wrong that I think people complaining about children being taught that same sex relationships are OK are wrongheaded and foolish.

 

You're wrong if you're suggesting I don't highly value peoples freedom to hold such beliefs and express them.

I'm suggesting that when it comes to freedom of religion Vs freedom of sexuality, the latter trumps the former in your eyes.

3 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

You are really confused about this aren’t you?

 

It is entirely possible to support someone’s right to hold religious beliefs and oppose homophobia at the same time. You will find that is the position of most people.

I'm not confused. You support the freedom of those religious beliefs, but you disagree with the principle, whereas on homosexuality you support both the freedom of expression to support it, and the principle itself. 

1 minute ago, Halibut said:

What leads you to that conclusion?

The fact you refer to such expression as "wrongheaded and foolish" could safely be concluded that you disagree with it. Am I wrong?

3 hours ago, Pettytom said:

I understand that you have a preferred answer to your question. I also appreciate that my answer wasn’t the one that you wanted to hear.

 

Unfortunately for you, I’m correct. I can support the freedom of expression of views that I consider to be bigoted. 

 

And I do.

 

You clearly have a problem with people who hold views that conflict with your own.

You don't know my view, but my assertion isn't that you can't support the expression of views you find bigoted, it's the fact that you find them to be bigoted means that you're taking one side over the other. So in this case, your support for freedom of sexuality trumps your support for the freedom of expression of religious views. To argue otherwise is clearly untrue.

3 hours ago, Halibut said:

Wrong. It's entirely possible to support people's right to hold and express religiously inspired homophobic views and simultaneously deplore and condemn those views as wrongheaded and foolish.

 

That's precisely my position.

As above, your support for one side of the juxtaposition clearly outweighs the other.

19 minutes ago, JamesR123 said:

I suppose deciding what the fundamentals of an ideology is can be open to interpretation.

 

The Abrahamic religions are pretty homophobic though.

 

However I largely agree with you.  It is absolutely possible to support someones right to freedom expression without supporting their views.

 

Not everyone here can grasp that.

In which case, there should be no problem with these protests, as they're merely exercising that freedom of expression.

Just now, Padders said:

How on earth are you holding traffic up in clear conditions, unless of course you are in the middle or outside lane.. then I agree with you.

You could be in the middle or outside lane, or you could be causing HGVs to overtake in the middle lane and therefore cause a knock on effect of pushing out 65mph drivers into the outside lane, so that there are no longer any lanes left for anyone wanting to drive at the 70 limit, therefore causing them to brake and triggering a concertina traffic jam.

1 hour ago, redbig said:

No I'm not misunderstanding it, I do between 50-60 on it (in the 50 zone) and that's plenty on that road, in my opinion.

Yep, and I'm talking about the 50 zone where 50-60 is fine, in my opinion. But mine doesn't count because old Cyclone can't have his driving skills questioned 

No, 50 to 60 isn't fine in the 50mph zone. That's speeding. The limit is 50 due to the configuration of the junctions. The 70 limit section is what is under discussion, and that section is clearly safe to be a 70 limit, and currently is a 70 limit, so driving at 70 on it is not "speeding" or "formula one".

8 hours ago, Crissie said:

No I don't think Cyclone's an expert driver, other than in his (or her) own eyes. But they fall in with a number of contributors on here of the opinion that the key sign of a 'good' driver is to go as fast as is legally allowed, and consider all other views to be "ludicrous", "laughable", "incompetent", "incapable" and so on.....

It's not unreasonable to go just under speed limit, say 65 in a 70. The "ludicrous" and "incompetent" statements are aimed towards those claiming 70 in a 70 is too fast, and proudly announcing they drive at 50 on motorways in clear conditions and don't mind holding traffic up and forcing them into manoeuvres.

19 hours ago, redbig said:

70mph is too fast on the parkway, 50-60 is about right. 

The speed limit is 70mph on the Rotherham section. It's a dual carriageway with central reservation so how is that too fast?

19 hours ago, francypants said:

Seems to me that men who think they have to drive at the speed limit all the time in big cars have something to prove.   Small appendages come to mind.................

Nice bit of sexist misandry but irrelevant. Seems to me people like to drive at the limit allowed to get to where they're going as quickly as LEGALLY ALLOWED to do so.

On 18/07/2019 at 22:56, Pettytom said:

You can in the case that you raise.

 

It is perfectly possible to support equal rights for LGBT people and freedom of expression for religious groups.

 

The obvious quid pro quo is that you’d also support freedom of expression of those opposed to the bigoted views of the religious people.

 

I’d hope that most people would be comfortable with that.

 

 

You can't say you support their freedom of expression, whilst simultaneously dismissing their view as "bigoted". To answer my question, it seems for conflicted liberals, anti-homophobia trumps religious freedom and multiculturalism.

On 19/07/2019 at 08:25, Cyclone said:

The freedom to express and exercise religious beliefs has (for me at least) always been tempered with the caveat "where it doesn't impact or harm anyone else".  In fact that goes on the end of almost any freedom to do anything.

How is taking their kids out school impacting or harming anyone else? If a religion is fundamentally homophobic but you're against homophobia, how can you support the freedom and expression of it? 

9 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjgi5-Qrr_jAhXp6OAKHZLWBxEQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=%2Furl%3Fsa%3Di%26source%3Dimages%26cd%3D%26ved%3D%26url%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.economicshelp.org%2Fblog%2F334%2Fuk-economy%2Fuk-national-debt%2F%26psig%3DAOvVaw3rgSMaRW6z2XBNEk9xBD3E%26ust%3D1563569943823492&psig=AOvVaw3rgSMaRW6z2XBNEk9xBD3E&ust=1563569943823492

 

We should probably take that to another thread if you want to discuss it.

It's been done to death, but your quoted graphs show how much the deficit has fallen since the 2010 Labour peak.

5 minutes ago, makapaka said:

Not at all. 

 

As you can see on the M4 it was reduced to 50 for a stretch for environmental purposes. Not to 5mph or 10mph.

 

its not sensible to suggest people drive at that speed or walking pace - which is why no one is suggesting it other than you. 

 

You don’t have to prove a road is unsafe to know that travelling at lower speeds is safer. 

 

The thread is about the parkway - which reducing to 50mph is in line with other environmental reductions in other areas - only extends what is already the existing speed limit in parts and would improve the environment.

 

 

Why stop at 50 though? 40 would be even safer and environmentally friendly. It's only a few miles so losing another 10mph won't hurt much.

2 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Austerity is not a budgetary necessity, nor has it gone anyway towards balancing the budget.  It's simply a means of transferring wealth from the poor to the rich.  It's entirely ideological.

 

 

Absolute. Rubbish. It's gone a very long way towards reducing the deficit.

22 hours ago, Halibut said:

One can support many. I'm generally a supporter of the underdog rather than the very wealthy and powerful - I think most sane people are.

One can't support both when they're in direct contradiction. So who do you support? Equal rights for homosexuals, or freedom to express and exercise religious beliefs?

20 hours ago, Mister M said:

It sounds like it's eating you up inside, and causing you some confusion.

I've no idea about the left or the right's view of religion(s), though I suspect it's a lot more nuanced and considered than your presentation of it; however I do know that the teaching of British values is absolutely the central to the education policies of the main political parties.

 

It's not eating me up inside, but it must be eating the left up inside, not knowing which minority cause to support.

7 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Clearly not,

 

I don’t know anyone on the left who is in anyway homophobic. I know plenty on the right who are. I don’t know anyone on the left who is racist. I know plenty on the right who are.

 

The only conflict I can possibly see is with anti-Islam racists who actually agree with the protesters in opposition to the LGBT lessons. Those on the left have no problem on either issue.

Deluded.

7 minutes ago, Padders said:

I"ve told you a million times , your exaggerating.

Nice one. You've done some fantastic work trolling on this thread and it's been quite entertaining at times, I have to admit.

6 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

You actually have it the wrong way round.

 

The left generally oppose all religions as well as homophobia so don’t have a problem here (check out the film of Jess Phillips speaking with the protesters.)

 

The right on the other hand, generally hate Islam, tend not to like non-white people but actually agree with the protesters’ homophobia/parental rights arguments.

You're delusional. The left may oppose Christianity but certainly not Islam. The problem is when the minorities they champion contradict one another, who do they support? That's what eats them up inside.

3 minutes ago, Padders said:

Stop exaggerating.

In what way was that exaggerating? It's not on the same level as, say, "hurtling along at 30", is it?