|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 9, 2022 11:03:26 GMT
I hope I'm not addressing the complete denier here on the differences between men and women and the way they think. Anyway, we will start by stating the obvious. Women are more interested in social issues and things like the manners of the gent in question and how we all behave. Men on the other hand tend to think more outwardly, like say in running the country men would be more interested in the big things like say how the UK is going to face world markets and so on.
We get a rundown of "Today in Parliament" on Radio 4 each night and I can't help but notice the inordinate amount of time spent talking about what someone said and whether it was insulting or not, rather than the important problems our country faces in the near future. People used to accuse Labour of being the nanny state, but now we have nanny Tories too. What is the point of electing a woman to parliament if all they are going to be interested in is how we speak, what words we are allowed to use and all of that guff?
It's most noticeable if you spend the rest of the day listening to problems facing Britain as outlined by male commentators from other countries on the internet. They discuss serious problems Britain faces that never even make it top the floor of the House of Commons. These problems will come OK, but for our government it will be completely reactionary, due to what I believe is a dereliction of duty. An effective government will understand the problems coming up and have a fix before they hit us. This is their job. If they want to be an agony aunt should they not be on the min wage in some council social care department?
|
|
|
Post by jeg er on Nov 9, 2022 13:04:30 GMT
Unlike yourself Baron, most of us men value good manners and gentlemanly conduct toward woman, and people in general, while also managing to be able to take interest in serious problems at the same time. We can even do this without employing your preferred communication method of trolling and abuse.
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 9, 2022 13:23:58 GMT
Should it take priority over things like international economic risks to the British economy? There is only a set amount of Parliamentary discussion time available. If over 50% gets cluttered with trivial personal issues then it is betraying the nation's interests.
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 10, 2022 12:26:27 GMT
When looking at a discussion it is constructive to also analyse it in the sense of the meta argument. What kind of things are being said in the House of Commons. How much of the argument is logical reasoning. How are facts used. Sometimes data is used in the argument but the data is usually just a number. Compare to an academic argument then you will see data often expressed as graphs or even more complicated representations. We are often quoted figures like more than this amount or less than that without sufficient intelligence to see the real picture.
Also what type of information is indeed conveyed. In most arguments these days in the HoC and also in the media, they are statements preceded by "I think". Literally the meaning is just informing people what is happening in the heads of others, not the real world. If you do this then you no longer say anything useful. You are not making any verifiable claim for only the speaker really knows what they think. It is an invitation to ask others to obey their authority, as if their thinking were important, but here comes the rub. If they stated real world stuff rather then their own mental processes then they would be worth more and should naturally be considered more important!
I know it is a lot of habit these days to fall into this stupidity by copying others, but I personally have been trying to address these very points in my arguments and hope it is appreciated. You do not want to know what I think - you want to understand something you previously did not.
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Nov 11, 2022 12:37:50 GMT
Unlike yourself Baron, most of us men value good manners and gentlemanly conduct toward woman, and people in general, while also managing to be able to take interest in serious problems at the same time. We can even do this without employing your preferred communication method of trolling and abuse. Well said
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 11, 2022 12:51:44 GMT
The argument is false. Parliament was never created to replace parenting.
|
|
|
Post by jeg er on Nov 11, 2022 12:59:39 GMT
The argument is false. Parliament was never created to replace parenting. well, we already knew your argument was false. and good job no ever said parliament was created to replace parenting
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 11, 2022 13:41:12 GMT
The argument is false. Parliament was never created to replace parenting. well, we already knew your argument was false. and good job no ever said parliament was created to replace parenting You are just another useless troll. If you had anything useful to say then you would say it, but you don't, you keep on attacking me. I have had enough of it. Do not bother to reply to me again.
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Nov 11, 2022 14:37:40 GMT
You do not want to know what I think - you want to understand something you previously did not. Or so you think, negating pretty much everything you said prior, which is probably for the best since it was just a bunch of unsupported statements expressing what you think.
|
|
|
Post by jeg er on Nov 11, 2022 14:58:10 GMT
well, we already knew your argument was false. and good job no ever said parliament was created to replace parenting You are just another useless troll. If you had anything useful to say then you would say it, but you don't, you keep on attacking me. I have had enough of it. Do not bother to reply to me again. You are like one of those predictable proles with these repeated troll dodge comments every other post anytime your argument fails And it is really odd how you constantly can give out all the obnoxious comments about people, but you whine like a little girl anytime you get some comeback
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Nov 11, 2022 20:39:17 GMT
well, we already knew your argument was false. and good job no ever said parliament was created to replace parenting You are just another useless troll. If you had anything useful to say then you would say it, but you don't, you keep on attacking me. I have had enough of it. Do not bother to reply to me again. If you come out with this mysogenystic claptrap, you should EXPECT to be attacked.
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 11, 2022 21:39:58 GMT
You are just another useless troll. If you had anything useful to say then you would say it, but you don't, you keep on attacking me. I have had enough of it. Do not bother to reply to me again. If you come out with this mysogenystic claptrap, you should EXPECT to be attacked. If you think it is mysogenystic(sic) claptrap, you EXPECT you have a right to attack.
And may I ask what use are you to a political debate?
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 11, 2022 21:49:30 GMT
The Baron may have a point though. As of now more than a third of MPs - 225 in total - are female. Can anyone make a case that this has enhanced the effectiveness of Parliament? And if so, how?
Perhaps it's misogenystic [sic] to ask but what the heck.
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 11, 2022 21:57:56 GMT
Oh FFS seems Hugo has hacked into Baron's account
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 11, 2022 22:16:40 GMT
The Baron may have a point though. As of now more than a third of MPs - 225 in total - are female. Can anyone make a case that this has enhanced the effectiveness of Parliament? And if so, how?
Perhaps it's misogenystic [sic] to ask but what the heck.
I'll have a bash. If we hadn't had the first woman PM in 1979 we would have continued the managed decline of the economy that all the male leadership PM's had signed up to since 1945. The alternative in 1979 was Callaghan who promised to continue the failed policies of the 60's and 70's.
|
|