Yes, let’s all make sure we let rich donors dictate social policy.

It’s not absurd from a strategic standpoint, if the party will suffer due to withdrawn donations more than it will benefit from looking progressive. Cowardly and callous, yes, but not absurd.

“Divisive” in this tweet seems to mean “dividing the Conservative Party from a constant flow of cash”.

Too right this perversion needs to be dropped.

Sorry, Adam, but we’re not going to let twats dictate policy either.

I’m not sure anything Stewart Jackson says needs to be taken too seriously.

How is Stewart’s pool getting along – pity we cant ditch tory MPs
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5310312/MPs-expenses-Stewart-Jackson-admits-claim-for-pool-work-was-excessive.html

In other words, Tory MPs should listen to their donors and ditch gay marriage. How absurd.

Yes. My God. The Tories might listen to their actual supporters? Oh no. Once they start on this democracy thing, who knows where it might end?

Gay marriage is not popular among any sizeable community. It is especially not popular among Tory voters. The idea that they should hand the Left a prize of own of the Left’s policies on a platter, causing splits in the Tory party and alienating their base is so stupid only Cameron could consider it.

Right or wrong, it is abysmally stupid politics.

@ 8 SMFS

“Once they start on this democracy thing, who knows where it might end?”

So you think “democracy” means bowing to those with the most money?

Interesting.

What I want to know is when is the government going to do something about adulterers and unchaste damsels as commanded in the bible?
For reference: Deuteronomy 22:20-22

20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die; because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/kjv/deu022.htm

@4 Adam:

Why are you concerned if a man wants to stick his willy up another mans bottom? You’ve been given the freedom to decide where you want to stick you’re own willy, surely dictating where others stick there’s is a tad greedy?

Similarly for marriage, if you are married and you’re worried this will somehow lessen your commitment to your wife then this is a problem for you, not others. If not what is your objection?

@10 – I always prefer Deuteronomy 22:11

“Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.”

Just as abominable as sodomy, but somehow not a headline grabber. Strange how the people protesting against homosexuality conveniently ignore this, and actually commit this sin at the same time.

Mind you its like jesus said “Judge not, lest ye be judged. Actually forget what I just said, knock yourselves out.”

For inspiration and guidance, try this account of a sample of sex laws in the Land of the Free:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/fun23.htm

It sounds quite a pragmatic excuse rather than an absurd one to me.
Whatever you think of the issue of gay marrage itself.
It certainly is a divisive issue, so he was right on that at least.

What’s clear though is that there can’t be any proper discussion of the issue across ideological lines. That breaks down very quickly I have found.

Myself, I’m a bit of a gay marriage skeptic. Meaning that I haven’t been won over by the arguments of those who advocate it …. yet.

This is the best analysis I’ve seen about gay marriage so far.
And those who oppose it’s ideas wll dismiss it out of hand.
A few people on another website already did. They said it was crap.

”ESSAY: Gay marriage is presented as an issue of equal rights, but it’s better understood as a top-down overhaul of the institution of marriage.”

http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/12539/

@ 14 damon

Realistically, I imagine that people who are opposed to gay marriage would be even more angry if we were to split marriage and state unions into fully distinct entities. Which of course would make it bloody hilarious if we end up doing that because they insist that letting gay people marry would somehow infringe their own marriages.

Personally, I’ve no problem with the idea, and if we were setting up the system from nothing, I’d probably say it was ideal. As it is, however, I think it’s taking a hammer to crack a nut.

@14 Myself, I’m a bit of a gay marriage skeptic. Meaning that I haven’t been won over by the arguments of those who advocate it …. yet.

Can you explain why you need to be? I dont understand how this would affect anyone negatively, but I can see the positives (namely gay people who want to get married can).

Is there something fundamental Im missing? Will men and woman already married have a chnace of becoming gay or some such?

I’m pro gay marriage, but if the Conservative donors are against it, it makes sense for the party to oppose it. I don’t find anything offensive about that; it’s just good politics. All parties should be responsive to the opinions of their supporters. Isn’t that one of the main reasons anyone supports a party, to have some influence over its direction?

To put it the other way around: if a Labour MP said ‘we should support stronger rights for workers, because that’s what our union funders want’, I don’t think anyone here would be complaining about it, and nor should they.

The difference between the Tory donors and the Unions is that there are hundreds of thousands of more voices in the Unions whereas the Tories are funded by a much smaller number of wealthy individuals.

I wonder if the topic of gay marriage came up at one of dodgy Dave’s £250K dinners.

Personally I’m not hugely bothered by the issue since it is pretty much only a change in name. Then again I definitely wouldn’t vote against it.

I’m really concerned over these reports in the news about a researcher with Captain Scott’s Antarctic expedition who observed penguins engaging not only in homosexuality but also in necrophilia.

By chance, I then came upon this report on the web from the highly respected scientific periodical Nature:

When the Congo River in central Africa formed, a group of apes was forever stranded on its southern banks. Two million years later, the descendants of these apes — the bonobos — have developed distinct social patterns. Unlike their chimpanzee relatives on the northern shore, they shun violent male dominance and instead forge bonds through food-sharing, play and casual sex.
http://www.nature.com/news/hippie-chimp-genome-sequenced-1.10822

Something must be done about this.

9. Chaise Guevara

So you think “democracy” means bowing to those with the most money?

Interesting.

No. Nor is that what he was suggesting.

16. Dave

Can you explain why you need to be? I dont understand how this would affect anyone negatively, but I can see the positives (namely gay people who want to get married can).

Once you fundamentally change the nature of the institution, you cannot expect that there will be no flow on effects. You cannot expect some of those effects will not be unforeseen. No one expected the Pill to lead to the sexual revolution. As far as we can see from other countries, allowing Gay marriage will simply end the institution as a whole. Marriage will slowly but surely collapse. Britain cannot survive without some minimum number of intact marriages that produce grounded, well educated children.

Chris

The difference between the Tory donors and the Unions is that there are hundreds of thousands of more voices in the Unions whereas the Tories are funded by a much smaller number of wealthy individuals.

Ha! Most British unions are controlled by a tiny number of more often than not Marxist-Leninists who are not only utterly unrepresentative of their members, but speak according to their Politburo’s orders, which in the old days usually came from Moscow, rather than in their members’ interests. It can hardly be any other way as factories are spread out across the nation. The Union distributes its own newspapers to members. Which means that the only people most members ever hear about are the office holders, not their challengers.

Bob B

I’m really concerned over these reports in the news about a researcher with Captain Scott’s Antarctic expedition who observed penguins engaging not only in homosexuality but also in necrophilia.

He could not have seen homosexuality as it is a 19th century invention. But what is the evidence of this by the way?

When the Congo River in central Africa formed, a group of apes was forever stranded on its southern banks. Two million years later, the descendants of these apes — the bonobos — have developed distinct social patterns. Unlike their chimpanzee relatives on the northern shore, they shun violent male dominance and instead forge bonds through food-sharing, play and casual sex.

Or more accurately, bonobos held in captivity in the West have been seen to do a variety of things. They are not much observed in the wild and there is little evidence that they do any of these things if left alone. I would not want humans to be judged by the behaviours of people held in a SuperMax. I don’t think bonobos ought to be either.

@ 20 SMFS

“No. Nor is that what he was suggesting.”

Oh yes he is. He’s talking about appeasing *donors*, for all that you tried to ameliorate that by rebranding them “supporters”.

Now, a party appeasing its donors is probably sensible. It is not, however, particularly democratic. If it’s anything-cratic then it’s plutocratic.

@SMFS #21:

As far as we can see from other countries, allowing Gay marriage will simply end the institution as a whole. Marriage will slowly but surely collapse.

This claim’s been made here before; is there any evidence for it? Which countries are you talking about?

I’m really concerned over these reports in the news about a researcher with Captain Scott’s Antarctic expedition who observed penguins engaging not only in homosexuality but also in necrophilia.

He could not have seen homosexuality as it is a 19th century invention.

Leaving aside the absurd claim that the concept of homosexuality is a nineteenth century invention; when exactly do you think that Scott was in the Antarctic? Before the Napoleonic wars?

SMFSbot

the institution of marriage was much freer in the medieval period. There were even gay marriages then

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions#section_1

It was only homophobic people that had it artificially outlawed – and why were they homophobic. Maybe they were in the closet…

@ SMFS

“He could not have seen homosexuality as it is a 19th century invention.”

You do know that coining a word isn’t the same as inventing a concept, right? For example, the Moon predates the word “moon”. Bewildering I know.

chaise

you forgot Kleptocratic…

Dave @16

Can you explain why you need to be? I dont understand how this would affect anyone negatively, but I can see the positives (namely gay people who want to get married can).

Mainly for reasons given in that article I linked to.
Also, that civil partnership WAS gay marriage … more or less.

We still don’t recognise people’s actually existing marriages to multiple spouses. Why don’t we? It must cause great hardship for second and third wives of legally married muslims when they come to the UK.

The reason I’m a bit of a skeptic is that I have come to the conclusion that the political mainstream gay rights movement is quite fundamentalist.
It takes no prisoners and condemns swathes of society as being backward and bigoted. I’ve mentioned before the (IMO shameful) example of Owen Jones calling Ian Collins of LBC (London) radio a ”knuckle dragging bigot” live on air – for not being a supporter of gay marriage. Collins was a full supporter of civil partnerships ”only”.
And you can even see it here in the way this OP was worded.
Slagging a Tory for being a bit of a traditional Tory.
You don’t have to like or support Torys to understand that they have their own views of the world, and that gay marriage traditionally didn’t even come into it. The fact that some of them might be dragging their feet about it is completely understandable.

It’s the prime minister who should be getting stick for that speech where he said he supported gay marriage because he was a conservative.
It was pure cynicism I think. He thought he could win some easy brownie points for his party.

From the article I linked to @14

The only way one could argue for gay marriage on the grounds of equality is if marriage is redefined as being less about human reproduction and the preparation of children for their future as about companionship. That is why all arguments in favour of gay marriage focus on the right of two people to live in accordance with their aspirations. This is a legitimate aspiration, of course, but it has little to do with the institution of marriage; it actually demands a fundamental redefinition of marriage. Advocates of a companion-based form of marriage have every right to promote their cause. But it is a cause that does not serve the interests of equality, but rather the interests of a particular form of identity.

@ 27 damon

“The reason I’m a bit of a skeptic is that I have come to the conclusion that the political mainstream gay rights movement is quite fundamentalist.
It takes no prisoners and condemns swathes of society as being backward and bigoted.”

Genetic fallacy; ad hominem. When you use irrelevent arguments like this, it gives the lie to your claim to be persuadable on the issue: if you were really keeping an open mind, why would you be grasping at straws?

Chaise Guevara, it’s my personal experience OK?
There’s a couple of idiots over on Harry’s Place who have insited that I am personally ”homophobic” for daring to question the ”movement”.

For a start there’s the ”LBGT” acronym which is not explained at all to the general public. What has cross-dressing got to do with anything?

But if you question the politics of LGBT, you get flack for it.
One gay guy on HP goes by the name of ”Flaiming Fairy” and he really lives up to the name. He slags anyone who goes against his views on the wider subject of gay rights. Dare ask about transgender, or question some aspects of it, and you’ll get shouted down.

I mentioned this woman Sheila Jeffreys …. and the guys on HP were having none of it.

Let us be free to debate transgenderism without being accused of ‘hate speech’
Researchers and theorists who question the practice of transgenderism are subjected to campaigns of intimidation

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/29/transgenderism-hate-speech

Chaise, it’s not ad-hom when it’s as clear as that. There are feminists who are not entirely happy with all aspects of what gets classified as transgender.
But they get shouted down and called bigots, before any debate has really started.

I can see why some people might see cross dressing as having aspects of misogyny about it. Guys passing themselves off superficially as women.
Particularly towards the drag queen end of things.
But debate gets halted because of sectarianism and accusations of homophobia and bigotry.
So please Chaise Guevara, don’t keep on with your assertion that It’s just ad-hom.

@ 29 damon

“So please Chaise Guevara, don’t keep on with your assertion that It’s just ad-hom.”

Damon, saying the *idea* is bad because the *people* who advance it are bad is, by definition, ad hom. It makes no sense to say “it’s not ad-hom when it’s as clear as that”, because all you’ve done is clarify the ad hom.

No matter how much people may deserve your dislike, it is still an ad hom to dismiss their beliefs simply because they hold them. Get it?

Also, you should familiarise yourself with LGBT before complaining about it. The T stands for “transgender”, not “transvestite”, it’s not synonymous with “cross-dressing”. As for it not being explained to the general public: what do you want people to do, turn up at your door and give you a half-hour induction lecture? Seems unlikely when you can’t even be bothered to look it up on Wikipedia.

Chaise, it’s not ad-hom when it’s as clear as that. There are feminists who are not entirely happy with all aspects of what gets classified as transgender.
But they get shouted down and called bigots, before any debate has really started.

Ophelia Benson, in a different context made a useful destinction between empirical claims and value judgements.

Empirical claims rest on their relationship to fact to to question the motives of whoever makes that claim would be irrelevant, and so an ad hom.

On the other hand a value judgement is not a ‘fact’, whatever Sam Harris might think, it is entirely subjective and to criticise someone for holding that opinion is perfectly acceptable.

The number of immigrants entering the country is an empirical claim: it doesn’t matter whether the statistics come from the liberal left or the racist right the truth is fact-dependant and dismissing the statistics based on the values of those who present them would be an ad hom.

On the other hand, whether you think immigrants deserve the same rights as everyone else is a value judgement and motivation is open to question. Its not an ad hom to dismiss as racists those who hold that immigrants deserve second class treatment.

And the case is the same for those who voice comments about gays or transexuals. There are empirical claims, where it would be fallacious to question motives, and value judgements which deserve legitimate value judgements in response.

@ 31 Shatterface

No, logic still pertains to value judgements. Yes, it is absolutely valid to say “principle X is wrong”, and assuming principle X is a value judgement then you can’t be gainsaid.

However, if you say “principle X is wrong because Bob said it, and he’s an arsehole”, that is still an ad hom. You’re still totally entitled to your opinion, but you’ve exposed the fact that your opinion is based on faulty reasoning (unless, I suppose, you actively hold to a moral code that “whatever bad people say is wrong”, although that would be untenable in practice).

I’m sure I could dig out quotes by any mass murderer that showed that they approved of something we pretty much all agree is good. To abandon that belief just because you find yourself sharing it with an arsehole would be crazy.

@ Shatterface

Oh, and regarding your immigrants/racist thing, I’m not saying you shouldn’t say “you’re an arsehole because you believe this”, I’m saying you shouldn’t say “I know your belief is wrong because you’re an arsehole”.

@3 Pretty much hit the nail on the head.

@29. damon: “I mentioned this woman Sheila Jeffreys …. and the guys on HP were having none of it.

[Jeffreys quote] Let us be free to debate transgenderism without being accused of ‘hate speech’

Researchers and theorists who question the practice of transgenderism are subjected to campaigns of intimidation [end quote]”

Hostility to Sheila Jeffreys (and you caught some of the backlash) can be identified in her unusual expression “practice of transgenderism”. Transgenderism is not something that is learned but is an aspect of personal identity; cross dressers, transvestites and transexuals may have different motivations and have different life considerations, but they coexist under the TG umbrella; the commonality is that TG is not a hobby that can be picked up at night school.

People like Jeffreys trivialise the problems faced by TG people by labelling TG as a practice. They emphasise fetishism, implying that TG is solely a sexual kink.

For some drag queens and drag kings, presentation as another isn’t about transgenderism — it is performance, and that performance is distinct from personal identity. I’ve known a few drag queens who would not dream of allowing a man to fuck them en femme; stage is stage for them. I’ve known others who would not have sex when dressed as a man. Drag artists, however, are a special group and we cannot draw conclusions from them about the wider TG community, aside from the knowledge that people are different.

The TG community itself is more conceptual than real. Post op/life style transexuals often spent time clubbing and socialising with TVs before making the change, but may not do so afterwards. Cross dressers and TVs rarely meet except for a fumble in the bedroom. Some TVs would not consider socialising with another TV who was not “passable”. In past times, some societies had membership rules that prohibited discussion of sex. TG is just an umbrella term for different people with a different outlook on gender.

Transgenderism has an intersect with the intersex medical condition. Which is an appropriate time to consider Sheila Jeffreys and the expression “practice of transgenderism”.

@31. Shatterface: “There are empirical claims, where it would be fallacious to question motives, and value judgements which deserve legitimate value judgements in response.”

This is a fine argument for something (I know not what), but it is unrealistic for economics or sociology or psychology. For psychology, diagnosis of mental illness is defined in the USA by a book commonly called DSM, a new version of which appears every ten or twenty years. In 1960, DSM (empirical case), homosexuals suffered from a mental disorder that needed to be cured; in 1980ish, DSM acknowledged that homosexuality was just how some people are.

In science, we can establish whether or not a piece of ore contains gold. In the humanities, that level of proof does not always exist. We might conclude that the difference between an empirical and value judgement is what people are told to think.

22. Chaise Guevara

Oh yes he is. He’s talking about appeasing *donors*, for all that you tried to ameliorate that by rebranding them “supporters”.

No he isn’t. And donors are just a sub-set of supporters. The important ones because they care.

Robin Levett

This claim’s been made here before; is there any evidence for it? Which countries are you talking about?

Well it is disputed, but it was good enough to convinced me. The example used, if I remember correctly, was the Netherlands.

Leaving aside the absurd claim that the concept of homosexuality is a nineteenth century invention; when exactly do you think that Scott was in the Antarctic? Before the Napoleonic wars?

The timing is not the point. The invention is. Penguins are not part of post-Victorian Western culture. Therefore they do not have homosexuality even if they have some level of same-sex sexual relations.

Dissident

the institution of marriage was much freer in the medieval period. There were even gay marriages then

No it wasn’t and no there weren’t. No historian in their right mind believes that particular piece of advocacy.

It was only homophobic people that had it artificially outlawed – and why were they homophobic. Maybe they were in the closet…

Artificially outlawed? As opposed to what? Homosexuality had been made illegal well before this period. It almost always is in any country with a strong Jewish-Christian-Muslim tradition.

So they were in the closet were they? In that case I wish homosexuals would resolve their self-hatred issues and stop bashing each other and leave the rest of us to get along

Chaise Guevara

You do know that coining a word isn’t the same as inventing a concept, right? For example, the Moon predates the word “moon”. Bewildering I know.

Yes but it does not change the fact that we have moved from considering same sex acts as isolated acts that some sinful people do, to considering it a disease to considering it an identity. There were not homosexuals before the 19th century because the concept had not been thought up. At most there were people who sometimes engaged in same-sex acts. Rarely exclusively as far as we can tell.

35. Charlieman

Transgenderism is not something that is learned but is an aspect of personal identity;

Sorry but why are they mutually exclusive?

The TG community itself is more conceptual than real.

It is not a real aspect of personal identity? You seem to be trivialising it.

Transgenderism has an intersect with the intersex medical condition.

An interest is not the same as a relation. I wonder what the evidence is that there is any genetic basis to transgenderism at all.

Charlieman

For psychology, diagnosis of mental illness is defined in the USA by a book commonly called DSM, a new version of which appears every ten or twenty years. In 1960, DSM (empirical case), homosexuals suffered from a mental disorder that needed to be cured; in 1980ish, DSM acknowledged that homosexuality was just how some people are.

The change coming about due to physical violence from Gay activists. Not a change in the science. Such as it is. Nor a change in the attitude of most psychiatrists either. When they were forced to remove homosexuality from the DSM, someone polled the members. Two thirds of them still thought homosexuality was a form of mental illness.

In science, we can establish whether or not a piece of ore contains gold. In the humanities, that level of proof does not always exist.

Not sure a lot of psychologists, psychiatrists and psycho-analysts would like to be told their work is not scientific.

@SMFS #37:

This claim’s been made here before; is there any evidence for it? Which countries are you talking about?

Well it is disputed, but it was good enough to convinced me. The example used, if I remember correctly, was the Netherlands.

It was indeed the Netherlands; and it was you that made the claim:

No. Half of all births in the UK now are between couples who are not married. The Netherlands used to be very liberal in its law, but very conservative in its social practices. Then they legalised Gay marriage. Around that time, and perhaps it was causal, marriage collapsed and single parent families have been increasing ever since.

https://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/02/20/coalition-launched-against-gay-marriage/#comment-358433

The problem was that when challenged to produce evidence:

https://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/02/20/coalition-launched-against-gay-marriage/#comment-358636

…you didn’t even try. Indeed, given your chosen measure of children born out of wedlock, I still fail to see how Dutch marriage can be said to have collapsed when that measure shows more children born out of wedlock in the UK (on your own figure) than in the Netherlands.

So how about some stats showing the collapse of marriage in the Netherlands following legalisation of gay marriage? Children born out of wedlock don’t get you there, so what next?

Chaise Guevara @30. I find your definition of ad hom dreary in the extreem …. and don’t really understand it either. It sounds too much like splitting hairs for me.
And I have actually looked up transgender on wikipedia … have you?
It’s a huge umbrella of a category. These are some of them.

Transgender identities

* 2.1 Transsexual
* 2.2 Transvestite or Cross-Dresser
* 2.3 Genderqueer
* 2.4 Androgyne
* 2.5 Bigender
* 2.6 Drag kings and queens

# 3 Transgender people and the LGBT community
# 4 Pride symbols
# 5 Transgender people and feminism
# 6 Transgender healthcare

* 6.1 Mental healthcare
* 6.2 Physical healthcare

# 7 Transgender people and the law
# 8 Transgender people and religion
# 9 Transsexual people and science

* 9.1 Brain-based studies
o 9.1.1 Androphilic MtF transsexuals
o 9.1.2 Gynephilic MtF transsexuals
o 9.1.3 Mixed samples of MtF transsexuals
o 9.1.4 Gynephilic FtM transsexuals

So yes, before I understand what the acronym ”LGBT” actually means, it would be necessary to have a bit of a lesson about the transgender part.

Charlieman @35

Hostility to Sheila Jeffreys (and you caught some of the backlash) can be identified in her unusual expression “practice of transgenderism”.

Indeed. That’s probably it. It can be hardly surprising though that their will be clashes of opinion on some of these issues. Particularly from some strands of feminism. I don’t claim to be on top of the debate by any means, but will always be pro letting people speak freely even when they might be talking nosense.

I can see how some women MIGHT have some suspicions about how genuine SOME aspects of transgenderism might be. And the fixation with people wanting to change their appearance to look like or even become women.
Why do you really need plastic surgery on your genitals might be a legitimate question. Sheila Jeffreys has asked that one I think.
If you haven’t got female reproductive parts already, having a surgeon making some ”plastic approximations” could be deemed to be rather obsessive and a bit insulting to women.

As I say, I’m not really sure what I think of it all, but I don’t like it that it’s assumed by the LGBT tag that all’s done and dusted as far as that’s concerned.
That we all know what the acronym stands for and that we all support it.

I agree with Beatrix Campbell (in this one article)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/31/julie-bindel-transgender-nus

@38. So Much For Subtlety: “An interest is not the same as a relation. I wonder what the evidence is that there is any genetic basis to transgenderism at all.”

Indeed, but I used the word “intersect”.

There are scientific arguments that a predisposition to transgenderism may be caused by the mother’s hormones during foetus brain development. The mother’s hormones are the most probable explanation for intersex children.

@38. So Much For Subtlety:
“35. Charlieman

‘Transgenderism is not something that is learned but is an aspect of personal identity;’

Sorry but why are they mutually exclusive?”

When writing on LC, I assume that readers will make the effort to understand what I mean when I am less than 100% clear. My comments are not proof read or submitted to a peer review committee.

So when I used the expression “personal identity”, I used it loosely. If you insist, I’ll try to express myself again: Transgenderism is like being white skinned and unlike being a Catholic; you can change one but not the other.

@8

”Gay marriage is not popular among any sizeable community. It is especially not popular among Tory voter”

Really well the Cam the liar was all touchy feely in the election saying the Tories had changed. Now they are in power the goons that back them have the right to dictate policy.

That’s not democracy that’s called lying to the electorate.

@SMS

”Ha! Most British unions are controlled by a tiny number of more often than not Marxist-Leninists who are not only utterly unrepresentative of their members”

No most Union leaders are moderate who do the best for their members.

I run my own business, unlike you probably, and I don’t think they are left wing enough

@tigerdarwin

You cannot convince SMFSbot, it has no true awareness. It merely parrots FOX & fiends!!!
It calls me trot, when I am a shareholder in the corporation I work for. Makes me capitalist that, doesn’t it. There is no reason why capitalist has to be rightwing however…

@37 SMFS

“No he isn’t.”

Oh yes he is. You should try reading the OP before spouting off. He’s specifically talking about big donors, it says so right there in his tweet.

“And donors are just a sub-set of supporters.”

Indeed. A subset defined by money. This doesn’t change the face that you’re equivocating between “donor” and “supporter” to make your laughable claim about democracy.

” The important ones because they care.”

Hahahahaha! Better produce that graph showing how individual wealth directly correlates with individual caringosity, then. But it’s nice that you’ve declared that some supporters are more important than others while desperately trying to claim that this is about democracy. Think you lost track of your own non-sequitur there.

@ 40 damon

“I find your definition of ad hom dreary in the extreem …. and don’t really understand it either. It sounds too much like splitting hairs for me.”

OK. Well, take it from one who understands these things, saying “that person must be wrong because I don’t like him” is an ad hom and a fallacious argument.

” And I have actually looked up transgender on wikipedia … have you?”

Yup.

“It’s a huge umbrella of a category.”

Exactly. It’s not the same thing as crossdressing.

“So yes, before I understand what the acronym ”LGBT” actually means, it would be necessary to have a bit of a lesson about the transgender part.”

A lesson from whom? Once again you’re restating old points without responding to what I’ve said about them. Who should pay for this message, who should design it, and how should it be delivered to you?