Off Topic Political Debate

Leo, the theme of religion is a difficult one. We can debate the effects of organized religion, or the problems which can arise when people bring religion and politics to close together - we can also know that when people kill in the name of religion that it is wrong, though we will never know how many have refrained from killing for the same reason. However, a real debate is difficult between a believer and a non-believer because the first has taken a leap in the dark to believe in something which he a. cannot prove and b. is, logically speaking, undebateable - something which the latter can never understand. Harold Wilson once said that the British Labour movement had more to do with Methodism than with Marx....he was right, but he understated it. Almost all forms of communist/socialist belief stemmed from religious sources until well into the 19th Century - however, the aimless blade of Marxist atheism all but destroyed that heritage in Europe - England was, however, different and it remained a country where, in left wing circles, works from people like Gerrard Winstanley would still be read......It is also the only country in Europe where there is still a Christian Socialist movement.

 

I thoroughly agree Leo. If you look at the viewing figures on here then this thread is the 5th most popular with over 3,000 texts and 10 times as many viewings - which implies that the site would be poorer without it. Amazing also that the Pub Quiz thread ! has nearly as many replies and viewings as the Nest. As you say, people do not change their minds whilst debating but I hope that particularly SH. will read through some of our texts at some later stage, and that it is not too late for redemption.

 

The only thing to ban is some fool banging on about political party membership!!!!

 

As always sir you are a gentleman. I may make my post in time but for now will hold back. I expect to disagree on here with many others - our only common ground is love of football and (yourself excepted) our team is Watford. There are one or two on here - or have been on here - with views I find astonishing. I do not take offence at anyone else's views though.

 

I hate to say it Cologne but I find I agree with almost as many views held by SH as I do by you. The difference is that you present good arguments for your opinions. SH is beyond redemption - his views will never change - life has proved to him that is is right. One or two though do not realise that he simply has an eccentric sense of humour - he thinks wumming is smart.

 

One thing that does puzzle me is why so many hate wumming so much. I tend to see it as a poor sense of humour - no more no less and it passes me by - but it really angers a few. When a person makes a point I try to see the point they are making - with a wum there is no point to be found so the post can be easily dismissed as it presents no challenge. Personal insults - water off a duck's back - they always say more about the giver than the receiver.

Can I suggest that in reading any SH post we ignore the style completely; aggression, sarcasm etc and just try to find the point being made. Answer or deal with the point not the person. Ignore any personal insult and do not give the honour of a response to it. Challenge sweeping assertions and assumptions; ask for definitions of his "communists" assertions etc; but if he uses abuse of a racist, religious, homophobic, sexist or other type then deal with it as we would for anyone and ask a mod to rule on it. I have to say I do not remember SH using any of the last category - firmly entrenched in his opinions he is but a bigot - not.

 

Leo, you are simply massaging your ego, try to post something worthwhile.

 

I would happily talk about this with you and others Cologne. I find these things interesting. I think it is best not to add a religious dimension to this thread though as it has already been described as toxic and adding religion could be the straw that breaks..... I looked for the old religion thread - was sure there was a general one but could only find the Stephen Fry thread and that one really did cause problems. If someone were to set up a religion thread I would gladly post there - perhaps it could be sub- headed as "polite" or some such to indicate that those wanting to use it are more interested in if you like "pure" religion than simply attacking other faiths or non faith. I even think in the right circumstances Yorkie might post there as he has a mass of thoughts and ideas that I find interesting on the subject. Just at the moment though I am not confident that I want it to be me who opens such a thread. I have only just returned and promised myself I would try to be non controversial (failed that the first day I think) and focus more on Match threads and football topics. Problem is I have always been able to be drawn into a debate.

 

I think this site has suffered as we don't get other supporters popping in and have the great repartee we had. I think we were proud to have a warm friendly forum. Now there are less of us and to me it seems we often resort to disagreeing, at times majorly, between ourselves.... I wish we could return to the days we had when there was much more active banter.

 

I think that we need more people actually opening threads on subjects which they are interested in - be it music, cooking or whatever and not simply thinking 'nobody will be interested'. Also we cannot expect so many visiting posters from other clubs if we do not sometimes visit theirs. The last point is that when we do have political debates then they should be just that - debates - and not slanging/point scoring exercises. The boards are open ones and I like to feel that any casual visitor (regardless of sex, age, religion etc.) will feel attracted by them and not repelled.

 

There has never been much banter on not606. A little in the early days in the Championship but not the tradition there was on 606 -but on 606 there was a lot of wumming so it's 6 of one half a dozen of the other. Just how much is there to say about the football itself? We all agree so all say many of the same things. This site is kept alive by the non football threads. If you count how many posts are made each week simply about football itself - excluding the prediction league which itself is just another pastime - the site would probably die. Even the nest is propped up by a good morning and a good night daily by a non Watford man - sometimes there is nothing between those posts.
A lot of people who do not even post seem to read and sometimes say they enjoy the controversial threads. Yes I agree that occasionally the heat there builds but compared to most other club sites we are angels.
I think we should stop commenting on HOW others post and each stick to our own style. Perhaps a certain individual should have each "WU" scored out of 10.
We are friends, we are brothers, we can do this together, forward men to victory and glory - the Premiership is there for the taking

 

We do have threads on a lot of topics. I find not606 is generally unwelcoming of visitors - I used to visit Cardiff back in the days and each time at least one person would tell me to get back to my own site - even though I never wummed or criticised them. Come on - define a debate - debates have a vast spectrum and you only have to watch the likes of Question Time to see sometimes they are constructive and other times not. I actually find the constant criticism of SH (let's be frank - he is the one who is being referred to mostly) is more tiresome than his posts. For goodness sake when did we forget to ignore silly comments? In amongst his wumming are some points worth thinking about. I sometimes wonder whether it is not the fact that he is an unrepentant Tory that really winds some up.
If we accept every post and just answer what we want it would reduce friction.
As an aside - we have over the years had more "visitor" comments on the political, religious and referendum threads than any others.
In deference to you Cologne I will open a thread with real topicality

 

I feel a call to action !

 

The smaller the number, the greater the share of glory......and all that !

 

I know Leonardo has upset a few people in the short time on his return but occasionally he posts something worthwhile. We need to let everyone have their say as long as it is constructive. I'm sure he does not antagonise on purpose.

 

- don't think you were trying very hard on that one SH - too similar to one from yesterday - sorry only 3/10

 

That well known union henchman, McCluskey has entered the political arena to warn Labour MP's not to disagree with Corbyn over airstrikes against Syria.

Will he withdraw MP's funding or worse?. Is this democracy?

 

Whilst I personally have a foot in each camp over Syria ie. I understand both viewpoints, I agree that Corbyn should allow a free vote on this one. He himself was allowed to vote against the Iraq war and the same freedom should exist now. However, raising the question mark over democracy is a little far fetched here considering how many lobbyists and sponsors the Tories have - and yes, sponsors will try to influence party policies - unfortunate but true. The only answer to this is to stop all sponsorship of political parties - which would hit the Tories the hardest.

 

Syria is difficult. You want to destroy Isis or whatever name they go by this week but will bombing achieve that - or anything else. I am not sure it is likely to work but I can see for some it is important to send a message to our allies that we support them. Given that we bomb in Iraq I cannot see that it is worth the extra aggravation to extend to Syria. Suggest to the US and French that we will increase our share of action in Iraq and keep it simple. To make progress feet on the ground are needed - but those feet need to be from the MIddle East not the West.

There is no excuse to deny a free vote to any MP on any party.