Forum menu
mefty - Member.... it was a grubby line of questioning.
I agree.
But I feel it was valid, as it highlighted his willingness to lie about his personal convictions.
He made an very good speech at the end of last year, which you can read here. He comes across as a very thoughful, brave and decent man. Yet people on here use perjorative terms about him, which says a lot more about them than him.
He's a self confessed liar and hypocrite.
People don't like that and voice their opinions in a robust and sometimes unpleasant manner.
It's human nature, what people do, especially on the internet.
Crucially, are people reacting any differently to him BECAUSE the subject of his lie involves his religious belief?
If so, why?
I'm sorry if any of my comments have caused offence, I genuinely liked the bloke for a while.
it was a grubby line of questioning.
A fair question would be: "Do you beleive that gay people should be discriminated against in any way whatsoever."
But I feel it was valid, as it highlighted his willingness to lie about his personal convictions.
It's a question designed to force a lie because effectively 'sin' has two meanings. None of us could answer it truthfully. If I ask you: "Is gluttony a sin" you have to say yes, it's one of the deadly ones, but then your opponents can represent that as you making a value judgment about over-eaters.
I suppose if you're an atheist you can get out of it by saying 'It's a sin, but I don't beleive in the concept of sins.' but even that could be reported on front pages as "Ruusty Spanner claims 'it's a sin'".
But I feel it was valid, as it highlighted his willingness to lie about his personal convictions.
He ended up lying because it was all the media were interested in talking about and his party was struggling to get coverage on the issues that they believed were important, which this certainly wasn't. I think that is pretty understandable and you have to recognise the reality of modern politics and the importance of media coverage.
People don't like that and voice their opinions in a robust and sometimes unpleasant manner.
It's human nature, what people do, especially on the internet.
Just because people do it doesn't make it right, but frankly it doesn't bother me, just speeds up reading a thread as they telegraph the fact that there is no need to bother reading their posts.
@ turnerguy
Among Brexit voters, 59 per cent said cycling was unnatural, compared to a quarter of Remain voters.Sixty-eight per cent of Brexit supporters said children should not be taught about cyclist's relationships in primary school, compared to 29 per cent of Remain voters.
Half of Leave voters did not approve of male cyclists becoming parents, compared to 78 per cent of Remain voters who generally approved.
FTFY
Whichever way you slice it, I'm saddened by the overall figures. Saddened also that you feel somehow qualified to call me a 'hateful bigot' for noting a trend towards bigotry. What's that all about? Reading comprehension?
As an atheist, no, I don't believe in the truth of the concept of sin.
It's a man-made construct that some people choose to impose on themselves.
Tim Farron made the conscious choice to believe that homosexuality is a sin.
He then chose to lie.
That's the important bit.
My view, that sin does not exist, is irrelevant.
Sounds like Tim Farron should join the Tory party.
mefty - MemberI am not really interested in your views, it has been quite self evident what you are for some considerable time.
Yes I am a person who believes in equal opportunities and freedom from bigotry for all.
Remember he voted to allow state employees to discriminate against homosexuals . that is bigotry. Believing homosexuals are less valuable and should be discriminated against. The man is outed as a bigot by his own words
Saddened also that you feel somehow qualified to call me a 'hateful bigot' for noting a trend towards bigotry. What's that all about? Reading comprehension?
I only meant bigot, not hateful bigot 🙂
But remainers seem to constantly lump all brexit voters in the same bucket and cast them all as ignorant and racist, and possible scum...
Sounds like Tim Farron should join the Tory party.
The party that championed gay marriage? DUP though...
He ended up lying because it was all the media were interested in talking about
He didn't [i]need[/i] to lie though. He assumed the media wouldn't understand his position, but he didn't actually try.
Rusty - he voted for allowing state employees to discriminate against homosexuals. that makes him a bigot. NO ifs or buts. He believes on the basis of his religious convictions that discrimination against homosexuals by the state is acceptable.
I got and am still getting a hard time on here for outing him at the time for this act but now he is condemned by his own words
He didn't need to lie though. He assumed the media wouldn't understand his position, but he didn't actually try.
I can assure you that it is not easy to communicate any sort of nuanced ideas through the media. Think Rowan Williams.
Remember he voted to allow state employees to discriminate against homosexuals
In 2011 two judges of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales upheld previous statements in the country's jurisprudence that the (non-canon) laws of the United Kingdom 'do not include Christianity'.
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_Kingdom
As an atheist, no, I don't believe in the truth of the concept of sin.
It's a man-made construct that some people choose to impose on themselves.
Tim Farron made the conscious choice to believe that homosexuality is a sin.
He then chose to lie.
That's the important bit.
My view, that sin does not exist, is irrelevant.
So if you were in a pub quiz with Tim Farron, if you were asked is gluttony a sin and he said yes, and you said no, you would expect Tim to be marked wrong, and you to be marked right? Which is the point. You're an atheist and even you would have to lie to this question. You'd say gluttony was not a sin, when you know it's famously on the big list of sins.
He didn't need to lie though. He assumed the media wouldn't understand his position, but he didn't actually try.
I think he did, and if you think he didn't then how do you explain the form the question took? It was obviously constructed to be impossible. The questioner could have asked "Should gay people be discriminated against in any form" which would have been easy to answer and deal with exactly the same issue.
I can assure you that it is not easy to communicate any sort of nuanced ideas through the media.
This.
The questioner could have asked "Should gay people be discriminated against in any form"
Farron voted to allow discrimination in state services against homosexuals
tjagain - Member
Rusty - he voted for allowing state employees to discriminate against homosexuals. that makes him a bigot. NO ifs or buts. He believes on the basis of his religious convictions that discrimination against homosexuals by the state is acceptable.
Well, he's either a bigot, or someone willing to vote in a discriminatory manner because of his self imposed beliefs, despite the evidence of his eyes and a lifetime of experience telling him otherwise.
The latter worries me more, because he was prepared to lie about it.
Sounds like Tim Farron should join the Tory party.
No there are still a few in the other two parties who understand what liberalism entails.
Yes I am a person who believes in equal opportunities and freedom from bigotry for all.
You obviously don't read your posts. Oh look, Peppa Pig is coming into land.
No there are still a few in the other two parties who understand what liberalism entails.
Whoosh.
He did in 2010, didn't have any problem voting for a budget that was completely at odds with his party's stated aims....Tim Farron should join the Tory party.
Whoosh.
Back at you laddie.
The questioner could have asked "Should gay people be discriminated against in any form"
Farron voted to allow discrimination in state services against homosexuals
All the more reason to ask him: "Should gay people be discriminated against in any form" rather than a theological 'have you stopped beating your wife" style question.
Mefty - we have danced this one before. If you can give a single example to backthat up I will give you a tenner.
I have never discriminated against anyone. I have employed muslims and Christians and I have worked for religious organisations. I have put measures in place to ensure that the muslims I employed were comfortable in their employment.
Unlike you I can separate my personal feelings from how I act.
But then I do not make excuses for and support a bigot like Farron who wants state employees to be able to discriminate against homosexuals.
laddie
🙁
Fair point out of breath. A decent journalist could have completely pinned him on that line of questioning given his voting record.
outofbreath - Member
So if you were in a pub quiz with Tim Farron, if you were asked is gluttony a sin and he said yes, and you said no, you would expect Tim to be marked wrong, and you to be marked right?
I wouldn't say no.
🙂
Of course I believe sin exists.
It's a human construct, along with millions of others.
I just don't believe in the fundamental truth of the concept.
I'm better on the history and music rounds, tbh.
I wrote:
(offers a poll in support of my suspicions)No I'm [b]not saying all Brexiteers are hateful bigots[/b]. But there is a trend
turnerguy then accuses labels me a 'bigot', and in the next sentence:
But remainers seem to constantly lump all brexit voters in the same bucket and cast them all as ignorant and racist, and possible scum...
The ironing and projection is strong with this one 😕
Sorry but this won't end well. I'm oot.
I wouldn't say no. I believe sin exists.
Then you'd look like a fundamentalist nutter and the papers would crucify you. It's a totally unfair question.
No discussion of TF would be complete without this clip which, I think, shows him in a good light:
outofbreath
Then you'd look like a fundamentalist nutter and the papers would crucify you. It's a totally unfair question.
It's a totally fair question!
You:
Do you believe in sin?
Me:
Yes, sin exists as a man-made construct.
What's hard about that?
Farron could have said 'yes, I believe homosexuality is a sin and I will/will not allow this to affect my vote on relevant topics.
Simple.
Then we know where we stand.
But he lied about it.
And now no one knows what he believes and how this affects his vote.
What's hard about that?
You said:
A) "I wouldn't say no." - ie You think gluttony is a sin.
B) "Of course I believe sin exists."
That already makes you *look* like a nutter.
Replace gluttony with sodomy and you're into serious bigot territory. That's why it's an unfair question.
Whereas if I simply asked you "Should gay people be discriminated against in any form" yo could just say 'No' and all would be well.
And now no one knows what he believes and how this affects how he voted.
Which is why "Should gay people be discriminated against in any form" is a far, far better question, unless you're a journo making a name for yourself.
What is wrong with asking him him a direct question about his beliefs?
But then I do not make excuses for and support a bigot like Farron who wants state employees to be able to discriminate against homosexuals.
if we assume that the distribution of different views of MP reflect the distribution of differing views of the population, then his vote with the discriminatory view should be valid, as a percentage of the population also hold that view.
Similar to a jury - should people with homophobic views be purged from jurys or should they be left there as the jury makeup is suppossed to be roughly/hopefully representative of the population, and a percentage of the population will have that view (if they are properly religeous).
The issue is the lying.
then his vote with the discriminatory view should be valid, as a percentage of the population also hold that view.
Problem is I doubt the percentage of the population who also hold that view really overlaps with those who might vote liberal.
So he is going to lose votes rather than gain them.
And now no one knows what he believes and how this affects how he voted.
Which is why "Should gay people be discriminated against in any form" is a far, far better question, unless you're a journo making a name for yourself.
What is wrong with asking him him a direct question about his beliefs?
That's *exactly* what I'm advocating.
But I thought you objected to me doing that:
Geetee - I loathe and despise religion and the religious, I believe all people who believe in god(s) are feeble minded.I think the religious, religion and belief in god as an incredibly regressive, negative, dangerous and harmful mental illness. It is a force of incredible harm and holds back the human race.
Its not biogotry.
Let's see some of the reactions:
That's a disgrace from a sensitive intelligent bloke such as yourself mate, seriously.
Really I haven't always agreed with you buti never thought you were a biggot.
TJ you appear to continue to go down the "losing it" route.As a friend, take a break.
TJ you're a hypocrite.
Amen to that, and I think Ton would agree.
Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you loathe and despise the people you care deeply about?Or are you so "feeble minded" that you can't even keep track of what you're saying?
You are a bigot, and worse that that, you are a bully, which given how much you've complained about others bullying you on here, makes you a hypocrite as well.
There's a lot of truth in what you say Kenny Senior, but there is nothing particularly new concerning TJ's hypocrisy and deeply insulting attitude towards people who have religious convictions. In that respect he isn't much different to Woppit's obsessive intolerance, other than Woppit is probably more honest and less insulting than TJ.
And another from when I posted it since your comeback
Believing people are feeble minded when you have never met them or listened to them explain their views - that's prejudice and yes, bigotry. Sorry - you're bang to rights. If you're not happy with this label then don't just complain - have a sit down and a bit of a think. Re-assess your views.
Just send the £10 to Christian Aid and don't forget to tick the Gift Aid box.
outofbreath - Member
Which is why "Should gay people be discriminated against in any form" is a far, far better question, unless you're a journo making a name for yourself.
I disagree.
It's a different question.
Oh I missed this one which is spot on.
TJ, either you're about to declare the Edinburgh defence, or you're just a bigot. I'd like to think that it's the former, but sadly I don't believe that's the case.I've been one of those who's supported you and refrained from commenting even when I thought you were wrong. No longer.
For someone who works in one of the caring professions, you display quite astonishingly intolerant views. There's nothing wrong with opinion, but the sheer forcefulness of your incessant desire to prove everyone else wrong is simply unedifying. I can only hope that you're not as unpleasant off-screen, and wonder (in all seriousness) whether you need some professional help.
You took a break from here a little while back, and when you returned you seemed a little more reserved, a little less eager to criticise. That was a much more pleasant TJ; if I see you on a thread I simply look away now. I urge you to take another break and ask yourself whether you really need to be so combative to everyone, on pretty much every subject.
But I thought you objected to me
Second time I've seen this stalking / bullying nonsense aimed at TJ. Guess it may not have been you, but...
Get a grip. Thinking the religious are idiots is entirely reasonable. They have invisible friends.
Feel free to quote this again and again if that's what turns you on.
For someone who works in one of the caring professions, you display quite astonishingly intolerant views.
But you could say the same of Farron, he's traded on his caring side.
Ask TJ if he lets those views (note that I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you 🙂 ) influence his work.
Bet you he doesn't lie.
You took a break from here a little while back, and when you returned you seemed a little more reserved, a little less eager to criticise.
He's really nice.
He's just a pain in the arse on the internet.
😀
Second time I've seen this stalking / bullying nonsense aimed at TJ. Guess it may not have been you
No it was probably me, when he stops calling people bigots I will stop, but on this occassion he specifically invited it and pleasingly Christian Aid will hopefully be £12.50 better off.
It's a different question.
Well the drawback of your preffered question is in your own words: "And now no one knows what he believes and how this affects how he voted."
The problem is sin is a wooly & meaningless word. Whatever answer TF gave to a question about 'sin' would leave everyone not having a clue what he really thought. You've told me that you think gluttony is a sin, apart from making you look a bit odd, it's told me nothing about what you really think about over-eating.
I am certain gluttony is a sin, but you have no idea if that means I saw a documentary about the 7 deadly sins and rembered it from that or if I torture fat people to death in my spare time.
Rusty Spanner - MemberFarron could have said 'yes, I believe homosexuality is a sin and I will/will not allow this to affect my vote on relevant topics.
Simple.
Yep, and then the next question would have been "Isn't that a lie Mr Farron? Your voting record certainly suggests it is". The fact is, that line was never open to him- his beliefs [i]have[/i] influenced his voting. Because he's basically honest, I think.
I don't think there's anything wrong with having your beliefs influence your voting- otherwise you're just a blank card and nobody knows what they're voting for. But you can't lie about it.
Fallon could probably be honest with his constituents and get elected, but it was a problem as leader. Theresa May's supposedly a christian but she certainly doesn't let her faith influence her votes or leadership or apparently her day to day life, is that better?
He had to either come up with a response that'd let him explain honestly where he stands and what it means as leader- which he bottled- or he'd have to weasel out- which he did. And tbh at that point it's not just about the lie or the reality, it's about being a party leader that can't even stand for your own position never mind your party.
I think Fallon's actually a pretty good guy, and a valuable MP but he wasn't equipped to be a party leader, least of all for the lib dems at that time
I am certain gluttony is a sin, but you have no idea if that means I saw a documentary about the 7 deadly sins and rembered it from that or if I torture fat people to death in my spare time.
If you think being straight is not a sin, but being gay is… many people will have a problem with that, and tell you so. Nothing to do with "gluttony"… think what you like on that, I have no desire to comment on it… few would. Your suggested actions seem a tad extreme though, I'd advise avoiding torturing or killing people generally. Weird thing to bring up.
If you think being straight is not a sin, but being gay is… many people will have a problem with that
Not christians obviously. There's a manual.