British Politics Thread

An interesting point to make is that our constitution has a source in the Magna Carta and the most recent court decisions, i.e. judicial precedent. The 1200s....and sometime today. The man seems to want to pick and choose beliefs from his favoured culture; it's far from unusual, but incredibly effing annoying.

It's an idiotic, bigoted study that stems from beliefs and practices that have taken hold in other parts of the world, such as America and such, that seem to believe that homosexuality is something that can be reversed. Not saying that it's never had a home here, but this is one of the few cases where such beliefs get big coverage. The idea that it should isn't just effing retarded, I mean literally mentally defficient, but also backwards and intrusive. Hell, they seem to believe that it's a definite; the idea that someone who is attracted to men cannot be attracted to women just makes me sigh. I believe Kinsey himself noted that you are either attracted to masculine or feminine -features-, not their actual sexual identity, and you are most likely attracted to some feminine features, not others, same applies for masculine.

edited 14th Apr '12 1:54:35 PM by Minister

Sooooo... human attraction is just a set of visual patterns, then? Guess I should tell those "scientists" to say that to the blind gay/bi/les folk who go by things like — oh, smell, voice, personality-type, feel and whatever else they like about somebody else.

Or maybe it's that way with everybody. We all like who we like because we like them and can't always put our fingers on why. Get over it.

Same Mail but I try to at least hold some kind of hope.

It sure is. Though what is most annoying is how he acts as the constitutional authority without actually knowing the nature of our constitution. It's like he just read a few history text books about constitutional events without actually looking at how the constitution has evolved over time.

I still can't get over him saying people have a legitimate justification for telling us to abstain just because some people find it morally wrong. How bloody intrusive can you get. Why does morality even need to have anything to do with sex. Society doesn't just fall apart because people have sex.

Also I think this case suitably shows the damage curative therapies have http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/06/08/cnn-documentary-reveals-tragic-consequences-of-experimental-therapy-designed-to-make-young-boys-more-masculine/

edited 14th Apr '12 2:43:15 PM by PiccoloNo92

The mainland territories north of the River Clyde and River Forth were united as Scotland sometime in the reign of Constantine II (879 - 952) for reasons unknown. Gaelic was by this point the dominant language and around this exact time Pictish culture vanished into thin air (also for reasons unknown).

And that's all we know for sure.

edited 14th Apr '12 2:58:44 PM by TheBatPencil

Whew! It's just a hypothesis, man, don't jump up and kill me. And don't assume features are entirely visual; it can be personality, scent, voice, etc. Love and all that jazz might be metaphysical, but sexual attraction can be studied, and probably should be. Just read a summary of the bloody idea before assuming I mean only visual stimuli.

And I meant for humanity.

edited 14th Apr '12 3:34:49 PM by Minister

Uh. I wasn't getting at you. <blinks> Hence the carefully deployed emoticons.

I was getting at those who narrow their search criteria until they essentially equate to a statistical nothing and shoots their body of research in the foot (particularly in the social sciences) and then still go on to try to call it empirical research.

It gets me every time. It's a button. Sorry. <blushes>

Heuristics: you need it if you're social.

Also, I could go on about the holes in the Kinsey report. Not least about the sample-sets. But, that would be an essay's worth of griping. Also... I lost said essay when my computer exploded. I'd have to hunt my sources down again.

edited 14th Apr '12 4:18:45 PM by Euodiachloris

Oh, c'mon. Everyone knows its the gay European Muslim single-mothers benefit-stealing communists who are the scourge of Britain!

But on the same serious note, whatthefu—?

As a psychology student (okay, AS, but goddamit, still psychology!), I can say, fuckin' heuristics, man. Like...

Oh, we've derailed the thread into the sociological and psychological constructs of the nature of sexual and romantic attraction?

Good luck with that. It's batshit crazy to study it.

The bus ad ban strikes me as out of line. If a religious public official said that buses couldn't show the atheist ads saying God is a myth, would you object to that? Because in free speech terms, it's the same thing. You can't say "It's okay to ban speech I disagree with, but not speech I agree with."

It's perfectly legitimate to ban adverts which will cause offence to a sizable amount of the population, which those adverts definitely will. Offensive adverts are banned all the time, and free spech doesn't extend to the right to declare publicly that homosexuality can be cured and that you're an aberration who has a disease.

Indeed. Saying "WE CAN CURE GAYS USING TREATMENT THAT'S BULLSHIT" is a lot different from saying "God doesn't exist."

The first directly attacks homosexuals, whereas the second is more broad and open. Yes, both are offensive to different groups, but the first is a blatant act of prejudice, whereas the second is a broad statement.

It's also of note that there were already huge swathes of complaints to the ASA and other groups. That's what prompted the preemptive ban, it was based on evidence of offence being taken, not just a random decision.

BTW, the atheist campaign said "There probably is no God, so stop worrying and enjoy your life." Or at least that's pretty close to the actual wording.

They didn't assert that there certainly was no God, because someone might have demanded that they prove it, based on advertising rules that say that you can be sued for inaccurate advertising if you make a definite claim you can't prove. This way, if they were taken to court for inaccurate advertising, all they had to prove was that there is no strong case for God, and this is why they weren't sued, at least on grounds of honesty in advertising.

Correct, whereas the studies on which the Christian group in this case based their claims were demonstrably bullshit.

That was indeed their wording. And that is true; not even our draconian and weird libel laws could get them for that statement.

Howevever, outright stating that one can 'cure' homosexuality - a practice which has failed for the history of history - is basically breaching advertising law, let alone ethics and discrimination law.

-bows-

I try my best.

(Well, that was a rather fortunate typo. )

Sorry. I'm paranoid with smileys after I read most of the Slasher Smile page.

And I just find the very concept of 'curing' it utterly...intrusive. Would you try to cure a football fan? Someone who likes Chinese food more than Indian? Bad comparisons, yes, but it's the idea of reaching into someone's life and saying 'this is wrong'. 'Why?'. 'Erm...because some guy said so a long time ago'.

edited 15th Apr '12 3:32:18 AM by Minister

That's quite humourous, actually.

Homosexuality was decriminalised (in England and Wales) in 1967. However, it wasn't until the mid-70s when the ICD (the psychiatric disorders bible for failed medical doctors psychiatrists) removed homosexuality from the category of gender and sexual disorders.

Oi! My mother resembles that remark! She Made Boobs, But Succeeded (MBBS) all the same, thanks! And, I'd still let her stitch me up after an accident. She's still nifty with the needle, for all she does shrink-wrap most of the time.

So, the Council Elections next May. The Tory party have been caught putting forward candidates for seats that they have no intention of even trying to win - according to Les Mason, a Conservative candidate in Sutherland who lives 100 miles from the area, party policy is to simply try and reduce the number of SNP votes rather than try and win. Mr Mason confessed that he only put his name forward on the condition that he wouldn't have to campaign nor actually "risk" being elected.

Isn't this just wasting the Electoral Commission's time? Is that even allowed?

edited 15th Apr '12 5:59:47 PM by TheBatPencil

That's grotesque. Can it go under electoral fraud?

It's done by everyone. The idea behind it is that you put up candidates for council seats you don't plan to win so that you get people in the habit of going out and voting for your party. Then when the general election rolls around it's easier to get your vote out.

The same happens in General Elections — the idea is that the future MPs get the experience of how an Election works, and what it is like to lose an election.

See my edit above.

edited 16th Apr '12 3:43:32 AM by Greenmantle

Well, it's just sick and wrong. People who vote closer to their principles even if they will lose should be shot.