The Pat Condell Thread [DISCUSSION]

[iup=3525879]TheWay[/iup] wrote:If his point is that many middle-eastern (and therefore, by extension, Islamic) countries have appalling human rights issues then he's set himself up for an easy win. If he thinks the slaughter of Gaza's population is justified because of this, then he's a tit. I really shouldn't have to explain why.

But he doesn't say that. Not at all. Did you actually listen to it?

Indeed I did. He does not directly say that.

What he complains of is that the surrounding countries are as bad or worse than Israel. Most likely true. He then goes on to complain that this does not get as much coverage. Very true. He condemns the criticism of Israeli airstrikes, pointing out that Hamas are a terrorist organisation masquerading as brave patriots. How insightful. He makes the point that Israel is surrounded by countries that don't like them, although frankly they don't help themselves in that respect. But never the less, once again he's factually correct.

But at no point does he give a justification for the bombing of civilians, or rather he absolves Israel of any responsibility. So I'm left infer that his argument (if he truly makes one at all) is the one I've stated.

Of course, the video isn't even truly about the current conflict, which is possibly why he makes so weak an argument. The Israel / Hamas conflict is his springboard to lambasting people for a capricious approach to upholding the sanctity of human life. And in this he's is spot on.

Incidentally, if you expect a reply from me in future, don't respond with the hackneyed and petulant "were you even listening" comment. There isn't the mutual respect between us for me to tolerate it.

[iup=3525899]TheWay[/iup] wrote:Indeed I did. He does not directly say that.

What he complains of is that the surrounding countries are as bad or worse than Israel. Most likely true. He then goes on to complain that this does not get as much coverage. Very true. He condemns the criticism of Israeli airstrikes, pointing out that Hamas are a terrorist organisation masquerading as brave patriots. How insightful. He makes the point that Israel is surrounded by countries that don't like them, although frankly they don't help themselves in that respect. But never the less, once again he's factually correct.

But at no point does he give a justification for the bombing of civilians, or rather he absolves Israel of any responsibility. So I'm left infer that his argument (if he truly makes one at all) is the one I've stated.

Of course, the video isn't even truly about the current conflict, which is possibly why he makes so weak an argument. The Israel / Hamas conflict is his springboard to lambasting people for a capricious approach to upholding the sanctity of human life. And in this he's is spot on.

Incidentally, if you expect a reply from me in future, don't respond with the hackneyed and petulant "were you even listening" comment. There isn't the mutual respect between us for me to tolerate it.

No, he doesn't do that, either. He contextualizes the current hypocrisy of western progressives with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict, providing examples of why critics of Israel (and almost all western mainstream media reporting of the current conflict in Gaza) should be criticised themselves for their blatantly selective, biased views when considering the myriad other actors in the region, as well as Hamas's own regrettable history of human rights abuses. At no point does he 'absolve' Israel of anything (he even describes the death of innocent Palestinians, quite rightly, as a tragedy).

As for your final paragraph: I'm not courting your 'mutual respect' in the least, but I would at least appreciate an honest interpretation of Pat's views without any attempt to wilfully misrepresent them whilst at the same time accusing me of petulance.

Ever called me a 'racist'? This one's for you.



10/10.

I'm not your 'mate'. I'll let the Mods decide if you've overstepped the mark.

That man seems to want to pigeonhole mass groups of people, constantly. Like some OCD postal worker.

I have a strong belief that everyone is their own indvidual person walking their own individual paths.

It make living so much easier and you don't get consumed with hate, negativity and trying to bring down people.

I got to 1min 50.

Whiny whiny man.

[iup=3573295]Cal[/iup] wrote:Ever called me a 'racist'? This one's for you.



10/10.

He really doesn't understand what being progressive is about. Now he's just making gooseberry fool up. Funny he talks about "arrogant and false opinions" in a completely un-self-aware away. Most of what he complains about is way more common in right wing conservative sources, which is bizarre.

[iup=3573799]Cal[/iup] wrote:I'm not your 'mate'.

[iup=3573295]Cal[/iup] wrote:Ever called me a 'racist'? This one's for you.



10/10.

Isn't the great irony that everything he describes a progressive as doing, he himself is doing in that very video?

Cal, I think he might just be continuing his comedy career here.

The guy says he's not a racist. Says all cultures are not equal, especially not muslim ones. Props up western culture. So if muslim cultures are not equal to western culture, why is that?

He's a racist.

But he's not a racist! It's the people who are calling him a racist who are racists! He is rubber, and they are glue.

Hold up, saying all cultures aren't equal isn't racist. All cultures aren't equal.

Now, for instance, Saudi Arabia may have a rich and vibrant historical culture that is interwoven in their present. But what is also interwoven into their culture at present is a lack of political dissent, awful restrictions on dress and literature, and a complete lack of religious freedom that doesn't pertain to a certain section of Islam.



Please don't take this to mean I support Pat; I didn't even watch the video. He's a mean old banana split, I've already seen enough of his videos to know that.

Haven't seen the video yet but only a mega leftie would agree all cultures are equal.

People vote with their feet, peoples flee the shitty parts of the world to go to the parts where the grass genuinely is greener.

Religion and culture are so closely intertwined in the middle east that they're interchangeable, but Western culture isn't just far better than the low bar that is Arab Islamic culture, but hands down the winner globally. Nothing comes close to matching the pursuit of happiness.

Cal is neither racist nor xenophobic. Neither is Pat Condell. People who say they are have baseless arguments.

[iup=3574601]Grumpy David[/iup] wrote:Haven't seen the video yet but only a mega leftie would agree all cultures are equal.

People vote with their feet, peoples flee the shitty parts of the world to go to the parts where the grass genuinely is greener.

Religion and culture are so closely intertwined in the middle east that they're interchangeable, but Western culture isn't just far better than the low bar that is Arab Islamic culture, but hands down the winner globally. Nothing comes close to matching the pursuit of happiness.

Cal is neither racist nor xenophobic. Neither is Pat Condell. People who say they are have baseless arguments.

Your entire post is full of "baseless arguments". Now's your chance to back them up.

Well I'm going to risk drawing Cal's ire, but surly any questions about cultures being better or worse than other cultures is at some point subjective. You need some criteria to measure what makes one culture better than another and then you have to rate how important each of those factors are to each other. Basically saying our culture is better than their culture is just stating an opinion.

I think we could create some kind of consensus to what could be viewed as the rating system for culture, which to me at least seems like the best way to reach some kind of objective view on what should be considered a good culture. But doing so might not reach your idea of what constitutes a good culture. For example I think a lot of people in the world would consider religiousness a bigger factor in cultural importance than say access to health care or you know not killing people.

But then I think the whole problem is a lot more complicated than just working out who are the goodies and who are the baddies. Every power involved has blood on their hands and should share some of the blame over making the mess. The US and UK's involvement in the Middle East has contributed to the rise of ISIS. Look at stuff like Abu Ghraib and quantomeno we've basically made recruiting material for them.

The US, since the 60s, have the most blood on their hands from foreign policy to a ridiculous extent compared to any other nation.

[iup=3574601]Grumpy David[/iup] wrote:Haven't seen the video yet but only a mega leftie would agree all cultures are equal.

People vote with their feet, peoples flee the shitty parts of the world to go to the parts where the grass genuinely is greener.

Religion and culture are so closely intertwined in the middle east that they're interchangeable, but Western culture isn't just far better than the low bar that is Arab Islamic culture, but hands down the winner globally. Nothing comes close to matching the pursuit of happiness.

Cal is neither racist nor xenophobic. Neither is Pat Condell. People who say they are have baseless arguments.

The pursuit of happiness is a strawberry floating joke. You don't actually believe that gooseberry fool do you? America as a society pursue only one thing and it's capital, not contentedness.

Happiest places on earth? Look at all these leftist hellholes and Islamic purgatories that are higher on this list than some of the SUPERIOR western cultures!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happ ... surveys.29

[iup=3574762]lex-man[/iup] wrote:Well I'm going to risk drawing Cal's ire, but surly any questions about cultures being better or worse than other cultures is at some point subjective. You need some criteria to measure what makes one culture better than another and then you have to rate how important each of those factors are to each other. Basically saying our culture is better than their culture is just stating an opinion.

I think we could create some kind of consensus to what could be viewed as the rating system for culture, which to me at least seems like the best way to reach some kind of objective view on what should be considered a good culture. But doing so might not reach your idea of what constitutes a good culture. For example I think a lot of people in the world would consider religiousness a bigger factor in cultural importance than say access to health care or you know not killing people.

But then I think the whole problem is a lot more complicated than just working out who are the goodies and who are the baddies. Every power involved has blood on their hands and should share some of the blame over making the mess. The US and UK's involvement in the Middle East has contributed to the rise of ISIS. Look at stuff like Abu Ghraib and quantomeno we've basically made recruiting material for them.

In the end, what you're saying is that the inequities of any number of mid-East cultures which routinely see bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, brutalisation, censorship, capital punishment (medieval style) etc, etc as a way of life are to be not merely tolerated by those us in the free world, but considered perfectly acceptable - nay, even 'equal' to our own cultures - because, you know, diversity and all that? And it's all our fault. Not theirs.

Is that how progressives see the world?

[iup=3574876]Cal[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3574762]lex-man[/iup] wrote:Well I'm going to risk drawing Cal's ire, but surly any questions about cultures being better or worse than other cultures is at some point subjective. You need some criteria to measure what makes one culture better than another and then you have to rate how important each of those factors are to each other. Basically saying our culture is better than their culture is just stating an opinion.

I think we could create some kind of consensus to what could be viewed as the rating system for culture, which to me at least seems like the best way to reach some kind of objective view on what should be considered a good culture. But doing so might not reach your idea of what constitutes a good culture. For example I think a lot of people in the world would consider religiousness a bigger factor in cultural importance than say access to health care or you know not killing people.

But then I think the whole problem is a lot more complicated than just working out who are the goodies and who are the baddies. Every power involved has blood on their hands and should share some of the blame over making the mess. The US and UK's involvement in the Middle East has contributed to the rise of ISIS. Look at stuff like Abu Ghraib and quantomeno we've basically made recruiting material for them.

In the end, what you're saying is that the inequities of any number of mid-East cultures which routinely see bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, brutalisation, censorship, capital punishment (medieval style) etc, etc as a way of life are to be not merely tolerated by those us in the free world, but considered perfectly acceptable - nay, even 'equal' to our own cultures - because, you know, diversity and all that? And it's all our fault. Not theirs.

Is that how progressives see the world?

No, its you putting words into people's mouths.

[iup=3574876]Cal[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3574762]lex-man[/iup] wrote:Well I'm going to risk drawing Cal's ire, but surly any questions about cultures being better or worse than other cultures is at some point subjective. You need some criteria to measure what makes one culture better than another and then you have to rate how important each of those factors are to each other. Basically saying our culture is better than their culture is just stating an opinion.

I think we could create some kind of consensus to what could be viewed as the rating system for culture, which to me at least seems like the best way to reach some kind of objective view on what should be considered a good culture. But doing so might not reach your idea of what constitutes a good culture. For example I think a lot of people in the world would consider religiousness a bigger factor in cultural importance than say access to health care or you know not killing people.

But then I think the whole problem is a lot more complicated than just working out who are the goodies and who are the baddies. Every power involved has blood on their hands and should share some of the blame over making the mess. The US and UK's involvement in the Middle East has contributed to the rise of ISIS. Look at stuff like Abu Ghraib and quantomeno we've basically made recruiting material for them.

In the end, what you're saying is that the inequities of any number of mid-East cultures which routinely see bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, brutalisation, censorship, capital punishment (medieval style) etc, etc as a way of life are to be not merely tolerated by those us in the free world, but considered perfectly acceptable - nay, even 'equal' to our own cultures - because, you know, diversity and all that? And it's all our fault. Not theirs.

Is that how progressives see the world?

This seems to be how you see the world. As you seem to be happy to support UKIP, who are bigots, racists and homophobes. How can you support one set of bigotry but not accept other people's rights to it? What's it to be cal? Should be ban all bigotry, or allow it for everyone?

Progressiveness is actually about ridding the world of bigotry. It's not about allowing it in the name of tolerance.

[iup=3574917]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:...you seem to be happy to support UKIP, who are bigots, racists and homophobes.

And there you go, again. It's that old progressive black magic: say a thing and make it so. Please give me hard evidence that UKIP make it party policy to support racism, bigotry and homophobia.

[iup=3574917]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:How can you support one set of bigotry...

...and again. Incredible. So carefree with the casual insults. Progressiveness at work, people.

[iup=3574917]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:Progressiveness is actually about ridding the world of bigotry. It's not about allowing it in the name of tolerance.

Which is odd, because the way I see it, progressiveness is all about banning stuff, closing down discussion, regulating free speech and arguing in favour of censorship of anything with which is finds itself in disagreement. It's about an 'approved' way of speaking about stuff, about not 'offending' anyone with an unapproved opinion and sneering at those who dare to dissent.

You can keep your progressiveness, with my sincere compliments.