Moderated Views on George Galloway.

WildCat said:
He openly supports a group (Hamas) which openly states their desire to fulfill god's wish by killing all the Jews.

No different than Nazis really, and no doubt you'd likewise refuse to condemn a politician who openly supports Nazis because it's just an opinion, right?
Click to expand...

"no doubt", eh? We weren't really talking about my opinions, but since you ask, it's my opinion that the Nazis were...well, wrong. But that opinion is neither right nor wrong, it's just an opinion. Similarly, it's my opinion that supporting Nazis is wrong, but I don't pretend that's the 'right' opinion, it's just my opinion. Is this becoming clearer for you? If it helps, here's an example of something that is both an opinion and unequivocally wrong:
WildCat said:
no doubt you'd likewise refuse to condemn a politician who openly supports Nazis because it's just an opinion, right?
Click to expand...


WildCat said:
That's what I said. If someone thinks all the Jews should be killed it's not "right" or "wrong", it's just an opinion. No need to condemn them for it.
Click to expand...

You're almost getting the hang of it. Personally, I see a need to condemn them for it (do you remember we spoke about 'social acceptability'?), but you don't. Neither of us is 'right' or 'wrong'.

WildCat said:
I am against legislating against any and all opinions and the expression of them, even if it's burning poppies on Remembrance Day.
Click to expand...

Which is worse than burning jews, obviously... :rolleyes:

WildCat said:
Exactly, saying that all Jews should be killed isn't right or wrong, it's just an opinion.
Click to expand...
Didn't we just cover that point? Then you said:
WildCat said:
No need to condemn them for it.
Click to expand...
which is where we disagree. Note, this is not science. Just because we disagree does not mean one of us is 'right' and the other 'wrong'. I disagree with your opinion that the statement 'all Jews should be killed' shouldn't be condemned, for example. I think that statement should be condemned (though I'd hesitate to condemn the person based on one statement, let alone someone's opinion of the meaning of some statement)

WildCat said:
Of course he's not, he's just a fervent supporter of an openly genocidal group that wants to kill all the Jews. No need to get emotional over an opinion, after all Hamas does other things besides striving to kill all the Jews. They feed the hungry and kill homosexuals and oppress women too, they're not one-dimensional.
Click to expand...

Oh, we were doing quite well for a while...let me try again. You disagree with Galloway. You disagree with Hamas. Hamas disagrees with you. Galloway disagrees with you. You say you are right, and Galloway is wrong. Galloway says he is right and you are wrong. Observers will form their own opinions, agreeing or disagreeing. But none of us are objectively right about something that is outside the realm of the hard sciences. Some people will no doubt dismiss that argument as 'wrong' because it doesn't make them 'right'. Defining 'right' as 'something I think' and 'wrong' as 'disagreeing with me' devalues both words to the point that they become meaningless and the deployment of them becomes mere incivility.
 
jiggeryqua said:
"no doubt", eh? We weren't really talking about my opinions, but since you ask, it's my opinion that the Nazis were...well, wrong. But that opinion is neither right nor wrong, it's just an opinion. Similarly, it's my opinion that supporting Nazis is wrong, but I don't pretend that's the 'right' opinion, it's just my opinion. Is this becoming clearer for you? If it helps, here's an example of something that is both an opinion and unequivocally wrong:





You're almost getting the hang of it. Personally, I see a need to condemn them for it (do you remember we spoke about 'social acceptability'?), but you don't. Neither of us is 'right' or 'wrong'.



Which is worse than burning jews, obviously... :rolleyes:


Didn't we just cover that point? Then you said:

which is where we disagree. Note, this is not science. Just because we disagree does not mean one of us is 'right' and the other 'wrong'. I disagree with your opinion that the statement 'all Jews should be killed' shouldn't be condemned, for example. I think that statement should be condemned (though I'd hesitate to condemn the person based on one statement, let alone someone's opinion of the meaning of some statement)



Oh, we were doing quite well for a while...let me try again. You disagree with Galloway. You disagree with Hamas. Hamas disagrees with you. Galloway disagrees with you. You say you are right, and Galloway is wrong. Galloway says he is right and you are wrong. Observers will form their own opinions, agreeing or disagreeing. But none of us are objectively right about something that is outside the realm of the hard sciences. Some people will no doubt dismiss that argument as 'wrong' because it doesn't make them 'right'. Defining 'right' as 'something I think' and 'wrong' as 'disagreeing with me' devalues both words to the point that they become meaningless and the deployment of them becomes mere incivility.
Click to expand...
Put it this way: I think Galloway is a vile, despicable, disgusting excuse for a human being. I would feel the same about any American pol who courted the vote of racist neo-nazis and such by publicly proclaiming "today we are all the Ku Klux Klan" at a public rally.

The difference is no one on the left would dare praise an American pol who did that, yet they refuse to call out Galloway for his equally horrendous public proclamations praising Hamas and in fact he's a darling to many on the left, including some who post on this very forum. There's no excuse for supporting such a figure.
 
WildCat said:
Put it this way: I think Galloway is a vile, despicable, disgusting excuse for a human being. I would feel the same about any American pol who courted the vote of racist neo-nazis and such by publicly proclaiming "today we are all the Ku Klux Klan" at a public rally.

The difference is no one on the left would dare praise an American pol who did that, yet they refuse to call out Galloway for his equally horrendous public proclamations praising Hamas and in fact he's a darling to many on the left, including some who post on this very forum. There's no excuse for supporting such a figure.
Click to expand...

I would imagine the 'excuse' for supporting such a figure is that you (the impersonal 'you') think he's 'right'. You (the personal you) think he's 'wrong'. We know this. Merely repeating it in ever more colourful ways doesn't further discussion, especially with regard to your sticking point: that some opinions are intrinsically either right or wrong, where 'right' is redefined as 'agrees with me' and 'wrong' means 'disagrees with me'.

Luckily, it's not an opinion when I dismiss your sweeping claims about those on the 'left' (or 'in the wrong', as you might say) as unsupportable - that's a fact. At the risk of drifting off-topic, but intending to cast light on Views On George Galloway by the 'compare and contrast' method, is there anyone on the 'right' (I begin to see where this confusion of yours springs from...) who would condemn Margaret Thatcher as "a vile, despicable, disgusting excuse for a human being" given her support of the Khmer Rouge and her consequent culpability in the maiming of Cambodian children?
 
jiggeryqua said:
I would imagine the 'excuse' for supporting such a figure is that you (the impersonal 'you') think he's 'right'. You (the personal you) think he's 'wrong'. We know this. Merely repeating it in ever more colourful ways doesn't further discussion, especially with regard to your sticking point: that some opinions are intrinsically either right or wrong, where 'right' is redefined as 'agrees with me' and 'wrong' means 'disagrees with me'.

Luckily, it's not an opinion when I dismiss your sweeping claims about those on the 'left' (or 'in the wrong', as you might say) as unsupportable - that's a fact. At the risk of drifting off-topic, but intending to cast light on Views On George Galloway by the 'compare and contrast' method, is there anyone on the 'right' (I begin to see where this confusion of yours springs from...) who would condemn Margaret Thatcher as "a vile, despicable, disgusting excuse for a human being" given her support of the Khmer Rouge and her consequent culpability in the maiming of Cambodian children?
Click to expand...
Did Thatcher lead a cheering crowd in Trafalgar Square chanting "Today we are all the Khmer Rouge" while chanting Khmer Rouge slogans? Did she describe Pol Pot as her friend?



Disgusting human being, every bit as despicable as the typical Stormfront member.
 
WildCat said:
Did Thatcher lead a cheering crowd in Trafalgar Square chanting "Today we are all the Khmer Rouge" while chanting Khmer Rouge slogans? Did she describe Pol Pot as her friend?



Disgusting human being, every bit as despicable as the typical Stormfront member.
Click to expand...

No, she preached to a larger crowd on national television that there was no such thing as society, and she lied about her friendship with Pol Pot to parliament. She was more open as regards her friendship with murderous right-wing dictator Pinochet. She was, by your standards, a "disgusting human being"...except she was on the right, so also right. It's been very informative to learn not only that there are objective measures of 'right' and 'wrong', but also that 'wrong' can be 'right' provided it comes from the right and that the left, being the opposite of right, are therefore 'wrong'.
 
WildCat said:
The difference is no one on the left would dare praise an American pol who did that, yet they refuse to call out Galloway for his equally horrendous public proclamations praising Hamas and in fact he's a darling to many on the left, including some who post on this very forum. There's no excuse for supporting such a figure.
Click to expand...
The above contains a contradiction. First you say that "no one on the left would dare praise ... etc", then "they" which must mean in this context, all people on the left. Then: Galloway is a darling to "many" on the left. You are in danger of appearing to be throwing out poorly thought out statements on this, intended simply to disparage the "left" in general, by association. Anyway you must know that Galloway is not universally admired by either left or right.
 
Craig B said:
The above contains a contradiction. First you say that "no one on the left would dare praise ... etc", then "they" which must mean in this context, all people on the left. Then: Galloway is a darling to "many" on the left. You are in danger of appearing to be throwing out poorly thought out statements on this, intended simply to disparage the "left" in general, by association. Anyway you must know that Galloway is not universally admired by either left or right.
Click to expand...
I never said Galloway was "universally admired". I said many do, and those people are invariably on the left. Who the hell voted him to Parliament, right wingers?

And what's the contradiction? Do you have examples of those on the left praising neo-nazis and the KKK?
 
jiggeryqua said:
No, she preached to a larger crowd on national television that there was no such thing as society, and she lied about her friendship with Pol Pot to parliament.
Click to expand...
She was friends with Pol Pot? Like this friendship?


jiggeryqua said:
She was more open as regards her friendship with murderous right-wing dictator Pinochet. She was, by your standards, a "disgusting human being"...except she was on the right, so also right. It's been very informative to learn not only that there are objective measures of 'right' and 'wrong', but also that 'wrong' can be 'right' provided it comes from the right and that the left, being the opposite of right, are therefore 'wrong'.
Click to expand...
Pinochet was an evil bastard, but he didn't advocate genocide like Hamas does. And even if Thatcher danced the lambada naked with Pinochet it doesn't excuse Galloway's support of the genocidal raging anti-Semitic terrorist group Hamas.
 
WildCat said:
I never said Galloway was "universally admired". I said many do, and those people are invariably on the left. Who the hell voted him to Parliament, right wingers?
Click to expand...
Yes, in some cases. He appeals to certain categories of bigoted religious reactionaries.
And what's the contradiction? Do you have examples of those on the left praising neo-nazis and the KKK?
Click to expand...
Of course not. I have examples of those on the Right praising Pinochet, arming Saddam, denying the Holocaust and the like. But I do not use this fact to accuse all "rightists", eg the minutes secretary of a Conservative Party branch in my home town in Scotland, of being raving fascists, by association with other "examples of those on the right".
 
Craig B said:
Yes, in some cases. He appeals to certain categories of bigoted religious reactionaries. Of course not. I have examples of those on the Right praising Pinochet, arming Saddam, denying the Holocaust and the like. But I do not use this fact to accuse all "rightists", eg the minutes secretary of a Conservative Party branch in my home town in Scotland, of being raving fascists, by association with other "examples of those on the right".
Click to expand...
Is Galloway an evil, vile disgusting human being for supporting Hamas or not? It's a simple question, the answer shouldn't require more than a single word.
 
WildCat said:
Is Galloway an evil, vile disgusting human being for supporting Hamas or not? It's a simple question, the answer shouldn't require more than a single word.
Click to expand...
Then why have you wasted so much space on this thread with a show of elaborated and reasoned argument? It is not your view of Hamas I am concerned about, but your view of the unfortunate Palestinians. It is their plight that Galloway is using, in my estimation, for the purposes of self promotion. This I deplore.
 
Last edited:
Craig B said:
Then why have you wasted so much space on this thread with a show of elaborated and reasoned argument? It is not your view of Hamas I am concerned about, but your view of the unfortunate Palestinians. It is their plight that Galloway is using, in my estimation, for the purposes of self promotion. This I deplore.
Click to expand...
Are you unable to answer a simple question? Would you like to try again, this time actually responding to the actual question?
 
JihadJane said:
Galloway was present as a representative of the British people, trying to prevent a war that would kill hundreds of thousands of people and destroy a modern, technologically advanced, secular society with a very high standard of literacy and healthcare.
Click to expand...

And that technologically advanced society should be able to invade and annex whomever they want, especially if they happen to owe that country billions of dollars.
 
WildCat said:
Are you unable to answer a simple question? Would you like to try again, this time actually responding to the actual question?
Click to expand...
Why don't you get in touch with JihadJane who used the same approach in #944? My response is at #945. I have said absolutely nothing that entitles you to suppose that I admire Hamas, or that I admire Galloway. On the contrary. Therefore I have no occasion to respond.
 
Due to poor behavior, this thread is now on Moderated status at least until a moderator can go through and clean it up. We might take it off moderated status at that point or, more likely, it'll stay moderated until we see a definitive change in behavior.

As always, do not start other threads to get around this moderation.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gorgeous George on TV at the moment and seems to have Henna dyed his beardy. Vain old fart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom