What about relationship / sexual issues? Would you want to know whether the presenter was straight or gay? Or a radio phone-in on race issues: do you need to know the colour of the presenter? Just trying to see whether this is strictly a 'bash someone's politics / religion' thing or whether you really do think that you need to know every aspect of someone's life, thoughts, beliefs etc. before you judge whether their opinion is valid and whether they should be allowed to discuss a topic?
No, because sexual orientation, ethnicity, gingerness, height etc are not choices, they are things you can't change. Though of course if the discussion is about race, it would be useful to know the race of the people talking. Politics and religion are things you choose, they are beliefs. And if you can't discuss beliefs you live in a totalitarian society. Though of course some people are simply brainwashed into particular beliefs from childhood through their families and the societies they live in, and even as adults are too scared to voice dissension, with justification. I said (twice) that it would be interesting to know the views of reporters/presenters, not that I was demanding it or that it exclude them from commenting or reporting on anything they want. Is that clear? Why are you so wound up by this, because I used a devout Christian as an example?
I'd hardly class myself as 'wound up', so don't think this is generating into another spat. I'm just trying to understand where your point is coming from. Although I am sure that you pick your chosen topics with care. I'd disagree that - by the scenario you describe relating to politics or religion - sexual orientation or race would have no influence on people's viewpoints were they discussing these topics. Someone's views on racial issues would certainly be influenced by their race, just as someone's views on sexual identity and gender equality are likely to be influenced by their own orientation and/or gender. You can't dismiss these things too lightly if you are also wanting to know someone's political persuasion before they discuss political issues, or their religions beliefs before they discuss anything related to religion, evolution or creationism. I would assume you either need to know everything about a person, or nothing. And by wanting to know about a person's beliefs and choices, as well as any other aspects of their life, you're already in the totalitarian state you mention. I think that a person's political beliefs, religious beliefs, just like their sexual orientation, height, weight, life story, gingerness, whatever you want to throw into the mix, are the possession of the person, who can choose to disclose the information or keep it personal and private. It should not bar them from having a discussion about anything - even if they are a TV or radio presenter - as long as it doesn't impact the quality of their work. And whenever I've seen Dan Walker, I've always found him a pleasant and competent presenter. I had no personal knowledge of his beliefs, but knowing them doesn't change how I feel about his ability to do his job well.
I'm not sure I need to know anything about an interviewer, absent a criminal record, so long as they are professional, and thus objective in their interviews
Well, we obviously differ in our perspective that a persons height is in the same category of 'possession' as his or her political or other beliefs. My point was that some things about a person are unchangeable, and hence in a sense above criticism, if the point of criticism is to achieve change, others aren't. Plenty of people change their political and religious beliefs based on experience and gaining knowledge or perhaps gullibility. No matter how much wisdom I accrue or dope I smoke I'll always be ginger, male, white and heterosexual. Possibly it is interesting to know those things about me, they doubtless influence my view of the world. But you can't change them. Present me with irrefutable evidence for the existence of God, I'll give up atheism. For now the fourth time, I don't want or demand to know these details about people, it's just interesting to know for some people in some roles. For example, I would be interested to know if the person teaching my daughter biology was a creationist. It might not lead to any perceivable difference in the way they did their job, just like it might not with Dan Walker. I am a well practiced hypocrite, I supress certain of my beliefs and opinions daily, based on the situation and circumstances, like I am sure the vast majority of us do. And, it may surprise you to know, I frequently do it to avoid upsetting people. If you think curiosity in the beliefs of others is a sign of living in a totalitarian state, there is clearly a wide blue sea between us. If asked directly I am happy to discuss my beliefs with anyone, and may even change them as a result of the discussion. The only reason I wouldn't is if I thought it would place me at physical risk, or would lead to me being discriminated against. Similarly, if someone expresses a belief I would assume that they are happy to discuss it. I'm happy to concede not everyone feels the same, or they don't feel they can express themselves adequately and therefore don't want to discuss. Fair enough. In Dan Walker's case he has written a book about his beliefs and why he won't work on Sunday and engaged the blessed Joey Barton in Twitter debates about it, so I think it's fair game.
Without wanting to provoke anything - honestly - you've pretty much ignored my points and simply restated yours as 'correct'. A person's sexuality will quite possibly influence their views on issues surrounding sexual orientation, sexual and gender equality, etc. in much the same way that you state that a person's religious views will influence their stance on religious - or even non-religious, in the case of fossil record - issues. Likewise their racial background and experiences will influence their views on matters surrounding race and racism, and racial equality. I really can't see how you can argue against that. You also say that the point of criticism is to achieve change. I don't feel that it is. The point of criticism is to express an opinion that analyses, classifies,interprets, or evaluates a person or thing. Nothing about achieving change. Whilst we are on the subject of how we put our views across, however - I'd really appreciate it if you could try not to use such insensitive language relating to people that have religious beliefs. You use the words 'brainwashed', 'gullibility', and 'laughable' on this page alone, and these could be easily taken by some as needlessly provoking. As you say you are well used to holding your tongue to avoid upsetting people, is there any chance that this can be added to the list of occasions you practice this, so that your views and viewpoints come across clearer than they maybe do now? It's sometimes hard for me, certainly, to separate the language you use with the intelligent points you are trying to make.
I wonder what Dan Walker makes of today's news that scientists have discovered the existence of Gravitational Waves, which originated a million years ago?
I certainly won't be able to watch Dan Walker again without thinking that he is slightly deranged. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc...s-an-affront-to-reason-science-and-logic.html This article sums it up perfectly and ends with this: "A belief in creationism may be a religious belief, and we must allow generous margins to the holding of such beliefs, but creationism falls beyond the spectrum. It should be consigned to the bin of unreasonable, untenable fact-allergic nonsense. Creationists cannot be trusted to report objectively, or to interact reasonably with their interviewees and with the public. Putting a creationist at the helm of news broadcasting without any explanation as to what the BBC has done to ensure that creationism or the beliefs underpinning it will not form any aspect of the show’s output is an affront to reason, science and logic."
An interesting view on race, religion and gender. When Barack Obama was elected I think he received over 90% of the black vote, the other day in New Hampshire ta large majority of women voted for Bernie. Go figure!
Chaz, either you are misreading what I write, or I am writing poorly. Sexuality etc influence opinions, I haven't argued against that, but those characteristics can't be changed. Religious and political beliefs can be changed and are in a different category. My definition of criticism is also different to yours, but to keep it simple let's replace that with dialectic. Let's celebrate diversity! I won't be changing the way I express myself to suit you, or others, even if it clouds your understanding of what I say, or provokes people ( though no one else seems provoked). In the context those words were used, they accurately reflect my feelings. Creationism is laughable (in a tragic way); kids are brainwashed to believe what their parents do; gullibility does lead people to change their views. I suspect that you have assumed that I used all these words, not just the first, to have a pop at Christianity. I wasn't, they apply to North Korean kids worshipping whatever Kim is in charge and the gullible who vote for populists like Trump who can't ever deliver. But of course they do all apply to various bits of Christianity. This is a debating space, anything goes within the site rules, it's entirely different to everyday life with real humans. As this has now turned into a critique of writing style and etiquette it's a bit dull to continue in this vein. Happy to discuss stuff of more substance.
We will need to disagree about your filing religious and political influence in a different drawer to sexuality, race, or gender. I cannot see how the influence these aspects of a person's life can have on their stance when debating can be classified as any different. Whether something is inherited, learned, genetic or formed by studied opinion doesn't matter - it's how it impacts your life that matters, and that will always come out in your views and opinions. I accept that you can't help but keep 'provoking' me in a critical attempt to make me change my views - using your definition. But please note - I'm not trying to convert you, so please do me the same courtesy and try not to preach atheism to me. If you are able to manage that, then I'm sure we will get along fine. Time will tell.
'Preaching atheism' nice one Chaz. Never fear, I have no expectation of changing your mind. I will continue to share my views on religion where relevant on here, but it's not aimed at you, just ignore me when it happens.
How times have changed. Thatcher took on the miners to exert her government's authority over the unions. This Hameron government, bristling with unexpected, unfettered power and itching for a fight, decides to take on the 'militant' BMA for want of any working-class opponents to trample. I heard 'sir' Roger Gale on the radio this afternoon accusing the BMA of taking a 'party-political stance'. He was disabused by a BMA member who happened to be a consultant and therefore unaffected by the imposed contractual changes. 'I used to vote Tory', he said.
Can I just say that I started out a devout Christian, became increasingly agnostic during early adulthood, recently was sure I'd become atheist, but have been bordering on agnosticism again of late. I still like the idea of a supreme being and ultimate arbiter but, if there is one, he's made a right pig's ear of things down here. Hope that's clear.
Well to be accurate, calling it as you see it. One of the joys of atheism is that there is no claim to access to absolute and static truth, because there will always be new things to discover that will change our understanding of the universe. Like 'gravitational waves' from a billion years ago. Make your mind up, fence sitter. You may be a deist mate.
