25 Feb 06
Originally posted by no1marauderYou would of course since you and Livingstone appear to have a similar cast of mind. Most civilised people here regard him as an ignorant yobbo.
You have to respect a man who will call a paper a "load of scumbags and reactionary bigots" to a reporter who works for it though.
26 Feb 06
Originally posted by no1marauder(1) Unfortunately thanks to Labour's failure to control immigration many parts of London now have lerge numbers of illiterates living on benefits to whom Lvingstone makes a natural appeal.
1) They seem to have elected him;
2) You seem unqualified to give an opinion on what civilized people think.
(2) That most civilised people here regard him as an ignorant yobbo is a statement of fact, not of opinion.
26 Feb 06
Calling people a nazi might be offensive but it's pretty common isn't it?
Is the "soup nazi" in Seinfeld offensive? I haven't heard any outrage about it, yet the soup guy clearly hasn't massacred anybody?
I think it's such a common everyday term it cannot be really offensive.
The reporter worked for a paper which had a history of trying to undermine Livingstone with personal attacks.
I suggest the Finegold wasn't in the least bit offended but pretended to in order to attack Livingstone a bit more.
26 Feb 06
1 edit
If I was suspended from work for one month for using an analogy, I think I would be entitled to question the nature of a society that places that kind of responsibility on one public servant at a dinner party and none at all on someone who was taking us to war on the basis of WMD.
Meanwhile, I think the original comparison was fair comment. If you work for Associated Newspapers, you are being paid to enforce some pretty ghastly norms in the interest of a social elite...and of course most editors function like Gauleiters.
26 Feb 06
Originally posted by Nargaguna"lerge numbers of illerates living on benefits"
(1) Unfortunately thanks to Labour's failure to control immigration many parts of London now have lerge numbers of illiterates living on benefits to whom Lvingstone makes a natural appeal.
(2) That most civilised people here regard him as an ignorant yobbo is a statement of fact, not of opinion.
- that is too funny. I can't believe you typed that.
Most people regard Ken as the elected mayor. A maverick maybe, but someone who has been brave enough to fight the establishment and be bold in politics.
If he was rude at a party to someone, then so what.
This all happened over a year ago. If he had said sorry, but not really mean it, he wouldn't have been suspended.
I disagree with what he said, but I defend his right to say it.
27 Feb 06
Originally posted by invigorateOnly about 650,000 persons, out of 5 1/2 million, voted for Livingstone.
"lerge numbers of illerates living on benefits"
- that is too funny. I can't believe you typed that.
Most people regard Ken as the elected mayor. A maverick maybe, but someone who has been brave enough to fight the establishment and be bold in politics.
If he was rude at a party to someone, then so what.
This all happened over a year ago. If ...[text shortened]... dn't have been suspended.
I disagree with what he said, but I defend his right to say it.
27 Feb 06
Originally posted by NargagunaThe phrase, "Figures can't lie, but liars can figure" spring to mind.
Only about 650,000 persons, out of 5 1/2 million, voted for Livingstone.
http://www.londonelects.org.uk/results/
Local elections have always had historically low turnouts, so the number doesn't surprise me. If people felt the way you do about the mayor, they should have came out and voted.
27 Feb 06
Originally posted by DOlivier2004The problem with representative democracy is that you get one chance to have your say - at the election.
Local elections have always had historically low turnouts, so the number doesn't surprise me. If people felt the way you do about the mayor, they should have came out and voted.
After that you are supposed to be responsible for everything the elected candidate does?
27 Feb 06
Originally posted by bbarrBbarr - don't know if you are still reading this increasingly dull thread but I'm still interested in this post.
That question is nonsensical. It's not a though offensiveness is an intrinsic property some words possess.
You said the question "How offensive were his words?" is nonsensical.
I take the question to mean "How offensive were his words said in that context?" (i.e. said by that person, to that person, in those circumstances).
Now would that question be meaningful?
Are you saying that offensiveness depends on the amount of offensive actually taken? Or the amount that would be taken by a reasonable person?
And is offensiveness a property of words (sentences, statements), even if not an intrinsic one?
27 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by dottewellI think it is a virtue of philsophical accounts of subjects that the accounts don't admit of more precision than is licensed by the subject matter. So, I don't think we can give precise measurements of offensiveness, nor specify a set of conditions for offensiveness that are individually necessary and jointly sufficient. That said, I think that offensiveness is a relational property of statements, and that the degree to which some statement is offensive will be at least partially determined by a) the intent of the speaker, b) the offense taken by the target, and c) the offense the target would take if the target was rational and in possession of all the facts. Each of these factors plays a role; they each provide reasons that bear directly on our assessment of how offensive some statement was. (a) tracks our intuition that offensiveness is lessened if the offending was unintentional, and that any statement can be somewhat offensive if the speaker intends it to offend. (b) tracks our intuition that statements can be less offensive if no offense is actually taken, and more offensive depending on the background of the target. (c) tracks our intuition that sometimes targets learn facts about the speaker or themselves that mitigate offense. There may be more conditions, and these may need to be refined (especially (c)), but that's all I can come up with as a first pass, and I'm not inclined to spend much more time thinking about this issue.
Bbarr - don't know if you are still reading this increasingly dull thread but I'm still interested in this post.
You said the question "How offensive were his words?" is nonsensical.
I take the question to mean "How offensive were his words said in that context?" (i.e. said by that person, to that person, in those circumstances).
Now would that qu ...[text shortened]... s offensiveness a property of words (sentences, statements), even if not an intrinsic one?
27 Feb 06
Originally posted by DOlivier2004Of course. My point was that if you vote for somebody and they subsequently behave in a manner which you don't agree with, people are forever saying "Well, you voted for him/her" as if you are supposed to be able to see the future when you vote.
Yes. Better one chance every few years than no chance at all.
Oh, and better to have checks and procedures in place to keep an eye on them once they are voted in than once they are in they can do what they like.
