What Happened To Honour And Integrity?

[naomi24]

Lies, spin and double-speak seem to be the order of the day in more than one area of life, and moreover that dishonesty appears to be not only accepted, but welcomed, encouraged and exacerbated by many. What happened to the once cherished philosophy of honour and integrity?

[Peter Pedant]

// I've watched decency decline since I were't lad back in 50s, //

I dont recollect the 50s as particularly honourable
jailing quiers,
Christine Keeler
Krays - - Greater London Police and Thiefrow -
Macmillan's wife ( Dorothy ) being a 'one man woman' her words but it just wasnt her husband
Anthony Blunt - we wont prosecture you as it is just too embarassing
Kim Philby we wont prosecute you as it is just too .....

the 50s werent halcyon days of unblemished honesty and integrity

( but hey this is AB - so .... lets insist they were! )

[jim360]

But it isn't thwarting democracy! That's the fundamental error you're making. It's the other way round: democracy is in fact thwarted when a decision that is made is treated as irreversible, when in fact it is not, never has been, and never will be part of democracy to insist on such restrictions. One may as well insist that the last three years, when the intention of 2016 has had to confront reality, are an irrelevance.

The only way (morally, if not legally) to overturn the 2016 referendum, in any case, is a further referendum. If that does take place, then one of two results happens: the result of 2016 is reaffirmed, or it is overturned. But in either case that will only have been possible because the people will have been asked, democratically, to vote on it a second time. And, again, in either case, it cannot possibly be seen as thwarting democracy to have more democracy. I can state it in so many ways but it amounts to the same thing: the electorate today cannot be trapped by the electorate of yesterday. Every attempt to do so in history has always failed, because of course it must.

[naomi24]

You don’t disagree with me in particular Jim - you disagree with the majority of the people who voted in the referendum - those who voted ‘Leave’ - and in order to get your way you’ve no hesitation in using any means at your disposal. Not admirable Jim.

[sevenOP]

"...more than one area of life, and moreover that dishonesty appears to be not only accepted, but welcomed, encouraged and exacerbated by many. "

So the 'areas' are Brexit, muslim sex offenders, politicians and 'the many' are muslims, a rather broad brush, but less than 6% of UK.

Thanks for clearing up your agenda naomi.

[jim360]

I've no hesitation in using any democratic and constitutional means at my disposal. There is a difference between that position, and the implication that there's anything underhand about it. I would, for example, not wish to see a PM simply revoke Article 50 notification without the support of either Parliament or the people.

[david small]

naomi24 I know where you are coming from and I applaud your integrity and conviction. Unfortunately you get attacked from many sides. This is the price of perspective opinion. Some seek to thwart you, others to contradict, some want chapter and verse, other demand you validate a comment you’ve not even made. A comedy of errors and a deliberate misapprehension ensues exasperation, and an acknowledgement of the futility of a worthwhile exercise. Respect to you for a valiant attempt.

[david small]

Darned auto-correction altered things again.

[naomi24]

SeveOP, pardon?

Jim, you use any means - which is why you try to convince others that democracy doesn’t mean what it means. Don’t try pulling the other one. It doesn’t have bells on.

David, thank you. Sad that so few are willing to confess to understanding what I’m saying. That’s the selfishness of human nature I guess.

[jim360]

But, again, there's more here than just a disagreement about politics. I'm having to defend my character as well. On the other hand, someone who agrees with you also praises your integrity and conviction, as if being in agreement and being honourable are one and the same.

Not that I disagree with david small's assessment -- in all the years we've debated I've never once had cause to doubt your conviction -- but his sentiments are part of the general pattern. Where is the praise, these days (apart from when someone dies, and often not even then) for the characters of our opponents?

[spathiphyllum]

HereIAm, how do minority’s always win? The way that sounds is very bitter. Minority’s don’t win in a democratic country. Do try to release that grudge...

[jim360]

I'm sorry to bang on about this again but you are simply wrong about what I'm trying to do and why, and for that matter about the nature of democracy. I cannot state it enough, but it's a fundamental premise that democracy implies that no decision is immutable. None. Not one. Ever. Yes, it suits me to state this with respect to the 2016 referendum. I can't deny a vested interest, it's plain to say. But it is true all the same, and you may yet be thankful for it yourself one day.

[naomi24]

I don’t hesitate to give praise or credit where I deem it due.

I’m off to bed now. Night all.

[david small]

Me too, sleep tight all.

[sevenOP]

"minority’s always win?"

tell that to shoah victims... and the Palestinians.

[jim360]

Yes, but what are the criteria by which you deem credit to be due?

That's a rhetorical question, really. Night.

[Peter Pedant]

// David, thank you. Sad that so few are willing to confess to understanding what I’m saying.//

no Nigh my sweet - alot of what you say is crip - I am not being dishonest - it really is awful twaddle. truly - truthfully


But that’s human nature I guess. - I am not selfish - I will share my views with anyone.

oh and by the way Jim - I think the movers and deep thinkers are saying that revoking A 50 without any further say-so is within the executive powers of a prime minister

[sevenOP]

jim360

how about when a democratic country freely votes to permanently become a dictatorship ?

[jno]

but what are the criteria by which you deem credit to be due?

"agrees with me"

[shoota]

And there was little old innocent me thinking the question meant what it said.....
Tut.

[jim360]

PP: // I think the movers and deep thinkers are saying that revoking A 50 without any further say-so is within the executive powers of a prime minister ... //

Well, some may be saying that, but I am not sure I agree -- and I'm certain it would, and should, be tested in a court. IMO you would have to repeal a good deal of legislation in order for that to be possible, which by definition takes it out of the power of the PM. But we'll see. I don't support that.

SevenOP: // how about when a democratic country freely votes to permanently become a dictatorship ? //

Future events will still conspire against the permanence of such an arrangement, but in any case that's clearly beside the point. The rules that apply to and define democracies can't really be applied to dictatorships because they aren't the same thing.