Why Cameron Disowned Douglas Murray - The 4 Freedoms Library2024-03-28T16:57:54Zhttp://4freedoms.com/forum/topics/why-cameron-disowned-douglas-murray?groupUrl=gays&commentId=3766518%3AComment%3A116625&groupId=3766518%3AGroup%3A29807&feed=yes&xn_auth=noYes, not good. Joe said:
To…tag:4freedoms.com,2012-12-22:3766518:Comment:1164712012-12-22T05:45:36.175ZAlan Lakehttp://4freedoms.com/profile/AlanLake
<p>Yes, not good.<br></br> <br></br> <cite>Joe said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://4freedoms.ning.com/forum/topics/why-cameron-disowned-douglas-murray?groupUrl=gays&commentId=3766518%3AComment%3A116625&xg_source=activity&groupId=3766518%3AGroup%3A29807#3766518Comment116625"><div><p>To show just how deep Cameron's treachery goes, here is a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party using exactly the same arguments the Tories used to ostracise Murray.…</p>
<p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, not good.<br/> <br/> <cite>Joe said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://4freedoms.ning.com/forum/topics/why-cameron-disowned-douglas-murray?groupUrl=gays&commentId=3766518%3AComment%3A116625&xg_source=activity&groupId=3766518%3AGroup%3A29807#3766518Comment116625"><div><p>To show just how deep Cameron's treachery goes, here is a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party using exactly the same arguments the Tories used to ostracise Murray.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYT1QFoHFs" target="_blank" id="" name="">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYT1QFoHFs</a></p>
<p>So, Douglas Murray doesn't have to just worry about fighting off muslims, and their inter-National Socialist enablers, he has to watch out for the Tories stabbing him in the back too.</p>
</div>
</blockquote> As regards the discussion pro…tag:4freedoms.com,2012-12-22:3766518:Comment:1165532012-12-22T05:36:40.635ZAlan Lakehttp://4freedoms.com/profile/AlanLake
<p>As regards the discussion processing system, people now are quite capable of operating within the framework of Facebook, or drive a car within speed limits when monitored by speed cameras, or buy goods and even complex travel tickets on-line. They are perfectly used to the idea from Game Shows, that there is an arbitrary set of rules and when you break one a gong goes, and if you break too many you are out of the game. The complexity of Predicate Calculus is not where its at at…</p>
<p>As regards the discussion processing system, people now are quite capable of operating within the framework of Facebook, or drive a car within speed limits when monitored by speed cameras, or buy goods and even complex travel tickets on-line. They are perfectly used to the idea from Game Shows, that there is an arbitrary set of rules and when you break one a gong goes, and if you break too many you are out of the game. The complexity of Predicate Calculus is not where its at at all. </p>
<p>The visual cortex is perhaps the most powerful (computationally intensive) part of the human mind, and when people speak, their linguistic acts are incredibly complex and deep, so things are possible based on these two powerful tools. I need to start drawing diagrams here, so I'll stop.</p> This is a really complex topi…tag:4freedoms.com,2012-12-22:3766518:Comment:1165522012-12-22T05:26:56.476ZAlan Lakehttp://4freedoms.com/profile/AlanLake
<p>This is a really complex topic. I think <em>"In praise of prejudice</em> (i.e. discrimination)" by Theodore Dalrymple helps.</p>
<p>When I wrote "<span>one of the foundational principles (no discrimination based on individual </span><em>properties</em><span> but can discriminate based on individual </span><em>acts</em><span>)", I have to admit, it was a super short summary.</span></p>
<p><span>The point is that a blanket ban (or discrimination?) against all discrimination is what is wrong.…</span></p>
<p>This is a really complex topic. I think <em>"In praise of prejudice</em> (i.e. discrimination)" by Theodore Dalrymple helps.</p>
<p>When I wrote "<span>one of the foundational principles (no discrimination based on individual </span><em>properties</em><span> but can discriminate based on individual </span><em>acts</em><span>)", I have to admit, it was a super short summary.</span></p>
<p><span>The point is that a blanket ban (or discrimination?) against all discrimination is what is wrong. Discrimination is a necessary and vital part of politics, of ideology, and in fact of all life. I'm sure that even the most committed Leftist would like to discriminate between faeces and food. </span></p>
<p><span>So, underlying Murray's argument is a set of beliefs about discrimination which was implicit. It would have been much better to make them explicit and then (in an ideal world) the discussion would morph into one about what kinds of discrimination our ideological system accepts and processes. Then, if we accept that we discriminate against groups shown to be a risk to society above some defined statistical threshold, we could discriminate against Gays for blood donation and Muslims for entry to an aircraft.</span></p>
<p><span>Of course, there's little chance of that discussion metamorphosis taking place, once the hyenas have started baying :-)</span></p> To show just how deep Cameron…tag:4freedoms.com,2012-12-21:3766518:Comment:1166252012-12-21T09:59:17.350ZJoehttp://4freedoms.com/profile/38DD
<p>To show just how deep Cameron's treachery goes, here is a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party using exactly the same arguments the Tories used to ostracise Murray.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYT1QFoHFs" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYT1QFoHFs</a></p>
<p>So, Douglas Murray doesn't have to just worry about fighting off muslims, and their inter-National Socialist enablers, he has to watch out for the Tories stabbing him in the back too.</p>
<p>To show just how deep Cameron's treachery goes, here is a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party using exactly the same arguments the Tories used to ostracise Murray.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYT1QFoHFs" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYT1QFoHFs</a></p>
<p>So, Douglas Murray doesn't have to just worry about fighting off muslims, and their inter-National Socialist enablers, he has to watch out for the Tories stabbing him in the back too.</p> That's not my point. I don't…tag:4freedoms.com,2012-12-21:3766518:Comment:1164602012-12-21T07:01:08.795ZJoehttp://4freedoms.com/profile/38DD
<p>That's not my point. I don't expect politicians or most people to be able to produce or work with such a calculus of debate.</p>
<p>My point is that Douglas Murray was addressing a clear and present danger. He was speaking in the context of the assassination of Pim Fortuyn (and in a country that had then witnessed the assassination of Theo van Gogh two years after that, and a siege in a house opposite the Dutch parliament, where muslim terrorists had been holed up, waiting for their…</p>
<p>That's not my point. I don't expect politicians or most people to be able to produce or work with such a calculus of debate.</p>
<p>My point is that Douglas Murray was addressing a clear and present danger. He was speaking in the context of the assassination of Pim Fortuyn (and in a country that had then witnessed the assassination of Theo van Gogh two years after that, and a siege in a house opposite the Dutch parliament, where muslim terrorists had been holed up, waiting for their opportunity to assassinate both Geert Wilders AND Ayaan Hirsi Ali). He was speaking in the context of a successful bombing of the Tube and an unsuccessful bombing of the Tube the previous year.</p>
<p>In that context, what he said was reasonable. Secular democracy was (and is) under threat from within. He came up with reasonable propositions of what will need to be done (undoubtedly we will get to the situation Murray describes, but the spineless and treacherous politicians will make sure it takes another 10 or 20 years to get there, by which time it will be so much harder).<br/><br/></p>
<p>For this, he was persecuted and ostracised. Very likely, the CSC was forced to close. Despite him stating that his comments were not those of the CSC, but his personally. Society was further damaged by Cameron's actions.</p>
<p>As for Secular Democracy not being able to discriminate against people on principle, a serving Tory MP has been able to suggest that legislation be re-introduced that permit specific discrimination against gay people: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/07/bob-blackman-section-28_n_2259711.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/07/bob-blackman-section-28_...</a> Has the Tory party withdrawn the whip? Have they even commented on his plans to legislate discrimination?</p>
<p>And let's not forget the discrimination that was enshrined in both Britain and the US without anyone saying a word: gay men were BANNED from donating blood. We are told "everyone is at risk" from HIV, and one of the most common groups to be HIV positive is black people, but they were not banned. Most people in the world with HIV are black. Most of the people in HIV clinics in London are black. But black people were free to contaminate the blood supply - no-one dared say that black people should stop donating blood. <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/womensenews/2012/08/13/hivaids-rates-rocket-for-black-u-s-women/" target="_blank">http://www.forbes.com/sites/womensenews/2012/08/13/hivaids-rates-ro...</a> Only gay men. That ban was in place for 30 years. No-one quibbled that a Secular Democracy could not do that.</p>
<p>How would Secular Democracy have responded, had gay men been deliberately flouting this ban, with gay leaders telling them to lie about their sexuality to deliberately infect the blood supply, and bring down straight society? Of course, they did not do that; they barely even complained or mentioned the discriminatory rules put in place to stigmatise them. If gay men had mounted such a campaign of indiscriminate terrorism, the calls would not be that we be banned from giving blood, the calls from politicians would be that we be incarcerated en masse.</p>
<p>But such malicious, planned contamination would be the equivalent of what muslim terrorists have been doing. And yet, no discrimination is permitted to stop them. It cannot even be mentioned as a possible solution. But when a group who are considered to pose a risk to society are discriminated against, neither the politicians, nor the media, nor the left, nor those who cherish the principles of Secular Democracy think that actual discrimination was such a bad thing.</p>
<p>Almost every Secular Democracy in the world has implemented such discrimination against gay men (or rather, men-who-have-sex-with-men): <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_male_blood_donor_controversy#List_of_countries_with_known_restrictions" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_male_blood_donor_controversy#List_...</a></p>
<p><br/> <cite>Alan Lake said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://4freedoms.ning.com/forum/topics/why-cameron-disowned-douglas-murray?groupUrl=gays&commentId=3766518%3AComment%3A116454&xg_source=activity&groupId=3766518%3AGroup%3A29807#3766518Comment116454"><p>Murray's remarks were clearly wrong because they violated one of the foundational principles (no discrimination based on individual <em>properties</em> but can discriminate based on individual <em>acts</em>) of SD (Secular Democracy). Therefore, he should either have withdrawn his remarks, or shown how a viable SD can be constructed without that principle. Its a no-brainer.</p>
<p>The world is crying out for a more formal 'machine' or system to run these conceptual structures through, instead of endless argy-bargy and recriminations in human writing.</p>
</blockquote> Working out political ideas i…tag:4freedoms.com,2012-12-21:3766518:Comment:1164542012-12-21T02:20:01.902ZAlan Lakehttp://4freedoms.com/profile/AlanLake
<p>Working out political ideas is just like computer programming. It takes time to get it right, and you have to make mistakes, and you have to run it thru the machine a few times at least, to understand why it doesn't work how you intended or hoped.</p>
<p>Its ridiculous to obsess about ideological errors in the far past, just as its ridiculous to obsess about program bugs you fixed 6 years ago.</p>
<p>Murray's remarks were clearly wrong because they violated one of the foundational…</p>
<p>Working out political ideas is just like computer programming. It takes time to get it right, and you have to make mistakes, and you have to run it thru the machine a few times at least, to understand why it doesn't work how you intended or hoped.</p>
<p>Its ridiculous to obsess about ideological errors in the far past, just as its ridiculous to obsess about program bugs you fixed 6 years ago.</p>
<p>Murray's remarks were clearly wrong because they violated one of the foundational principles (no discrimination based on individual <em>properties</em> but can discriminate based on individual <em>acts</em>) of SD (Secular Democracy). Therefore, he should either have withdrawn his remarks, or shown how a viable SD can be constructed without that principle. Its a no-brainer.</p>
<p>The world is crying out for a more formal 'machine' or system to run these conceptual structures through, instead of endless argy-bargy and recriminations in human writing. Its pointless and endless. If I can only live long enough, I'll try construct the beginnings of one.</p>