Who as a landlord voted against protective fire systems for rented properties as it would affect his profits? All his voting history is against the working classes.
Rees-Mogg: increased usage of food banks 'uplifting'
- Thread starter KNiVES
- Start date
Who as a landlord voted against protective fire systems for rented properties as it would affect his profits? All his voting history is against the working classes.
You talk some rubbish you really do.
....
To be honest I'd rather live in your front room.
Just look at his house for an idea of how connected he is to the working class...
To be honest I'd rather live in your front room.
Caporegime
Just look at his house for an idea of how connected he is to the working class...
Why would one want to be connected to the working class? We should create a society in which people aspire not to be working class, not one where we pander to their squalor and bitterness.
Just look at his house for an idea of how connected he is to the working class...
Really nice living room! Like the fireplace and rug. High ceilings too, nice period property.
Caporegime
Drawing room thanks.
Soldato
A person says "is nice that people are charitable" and "killing a child is wrong" and people applaud yet Rees Mogg says the same and he's Satan incarnate to some people.
a foetus is not a child, and he is also a politician and rather than acknowledging the issue of food bank he offers to do nothing about it and tries to shift the blame, whilst doing the usual politician thing of word play to make himself sound good.
so well done for falling for it and the logical fallacy.
his views are abhorrent and does the usual thing of hiding behind religion, yet on everything else his religions tells him he should do, he ignores it.
Soldato
He believes it is though and because of that he's unwilling to kill that "child", a belief that 1.3 BILLION other people also have, including the Pope. So are the Pope and the 1.3 billion other people also "abhorrent" to you? I mean it's your opinion so, if they are all abhorrent to you, then I have no issue with that. I just think "abhorrent" is a bit 'strong' to call someone that because they don't believe in killing a 'child'.
Also, playing devils advocate a little, termination of a foetus is legal upto 168 days 23 hours and 59 seconds in the UK. 1 second later at 169 days it would now be illegally murdering a child (unless carried out for a medical reason which can be done after 24 weeks). Mogg believes that "life" begins at inception, not a man made 1 second point in time 24 weeks later. So who is right, when does "life" start, at inception, at some man made 1 second barrier at 24 weeks (different for different countries) etc?
Falling for "what" exactly? I see what, to me, looks like a campaign of "hate" by some people who are using some fairly extreme language about the guy. I disagree with Mogg on abortion, I think he's utterly wrong and I agree that people should be able to challenge him on his beliefs, but I don't think he needs to be demonised with extreme language just because his opinion is different than mine.
So while I'm not disagreeing with peoples "I think he's wrong" opinion (everyone has an opinion) it's the extreme language being used to describe him I find off-putting i.e his belief that it is wrong to kill a 'child' is -
Abhorrent - inspiring disgust and loathing; repugnant.
Synonyms: detestable, detested, hateful, hated, loathsome, loathed, despicable, despised, abominable, abominated, execrable, execrated, repellent, repugnant, repulsive, revolting, disgusting, distasteful, horrible, horrid, horrifying, awful, heinous, reprehensible, obnoxious, odious, nauseating, offensive, contemptible
Is his belief that it is wrong to kill a 'child' all those things? I'd say "abhorrent" is a bit strong when a simple "I think he is wrong" is how I would say it.
Last edited:
Soldato
Personally I cant stand the bloke but you kind of know where you stand with him - whether you agree or not. If more politicians were like him I expect politics would be in a better place than it is now
in no way can you even consider him being right a few celss does not make a human, let alone using emotive language like a child which you continue to use despite it being utterly wrong, both in science, language and law it is not a child. .
Of course it isn't set by an exact time, its a gradual process but the limit has to be set somewhere (and imo a bit late)
by repeatedly calling it a child you are falling into a fallacy and not represting the facts at hand.
and he is adherent as are his views and yes there are a lot of such people out there, group with high numbers does not make their views nice, yet another fallacy you make.
Are you not working class yourself ,stop trying to be someone you are not, what is it you do for a job.
Soldato
Just out of shot is his 60" TV and games console collection. Maybe
Permabanned
Some are not only rich, they also have good taste, good breeding and an aversion to Ikea
His home furnishings and dress sense seem fine to many with an aversion to shell suits and self assembly furniture, give him a break. You may not like his religious stance, nor his politics, but good taste is hardly something a rational Englishman could hold against him..
Soldato
yeah it is
IMHO emotive language > dehumanising language
Speaking about *language* a "foetus" by the Oxford English Dictionary is at least 8 weeks old, so clearly more than a few "cells" in fact *science* shows us that the baby already at just 8 weeks old has had a heart beat for 2 weeks already! Beating 150 times a minute, that's around twice the rate of your heart or 150x if you have none (emotive language ya know) Science also shows that if you end somethings heart beat, you killed it. At the end of the day, abortion doesn't stop you from being a parent, it makes you a parent of a dead baby.
Soldato
These discussions go much better when people read the actual words I post, instead of replying to what you "think" I wrote.
So to be clear, I have never called it a child. I wrote very clearly that "he" believes it to be a 'child', not me, hence the ' ' around the word every time I put forward what he believes. Plus I made it very clear when I said I agree with abortion that I don't think it is a child, which is why I believe Moggs is absolutely wrong.
I have also never said that his or his groups "views are nice", I only asked if "you" thought their views were abhorrent, I never gave my opinion on their views so how can I be making a "fallacy"?
Maybe you're tired or just finding my posts difficult to read or even just trying to find a reason to pick a argument with someone who agrees with you, in principle, that Moggs is wrong, I don't know, but your misunderstanding/misquoting doesn't make discussion very easy.
Soldato
The media is a joke, literally lying about what he said.
Some are not only rich, they also have good taste, good breeding and an aversion to Ikea
There is nothing good taste about that room - its a hideous gaudy mess of throwing lots of throwing lots of ostentatious elements at it and somehow thinking that they work together in any random combination. Almost certainly the room is compensating for something.