El Segundo

You're initial point was, more or less, as I read it, was rights are only rights if they are legal rights. On that basis Asylum Seekers don't currently enjoy certain universal, human rights, because they are not included in UK Law. Your take implies that Women never had the right to equality, or Homosexuals the right to love freely, until it was passed into Law. I disagree, I think that fundamental Human Right was always there - it just hadn't been passed into Law. Maybe it's just a different way of looking at it. Well exactly - which is why I'd say Farage might have a case for arguing his situation comes under discrimination laws.

What I'm suggesting is, since there are rights against discrimination that protect some pretty horrendous world views, then there is a case for saying he is being discriminated against because of his beliefs.

Which dictionary and which definition?

If the law is always reflection of actual rights, why was there a need for Women's rights movements, Gay rights movements, or Racial Equality movements in order to change the law to recognise those rights? Why are there still rights movements of various descriptions - e.g. for Asylum seekers - if the law already has, and has always had it all covered? I think there is a distinction between what might be called universal rights. Legal rights will vary from state to state. Who decides which state has got it right? For example, it is apparently a right in the UK to freely express religious views that might include the killing of all non-believers, the subjugation of women, or the execution or damnation of homosexuals. Is that also a universal right? Should it be?

Who's making up their own rules, me or Blandy, or you? Or all of us? Fundamental component of meaningful philosophical debate - define the terms. Otherwise you're as likely as not talking at cross purposes.

I don't necessarily agree with your definition of Ideology. It's debateable, but to me Ideology is where people codify and organize human interpretation of events, attitudes, history, situations, beliefs etc. and teach or encourage others to reject or accept things based on the codified ideas. That covers a lot of religions as well as Political stances. And the law is, again to me, not necessarily a reflection of genuine rights. So based on my definition of Ideology, there is a legal right not be discriminated against if your ideology takes the form of a religion, despite the fact that some religious doctrines preach horrific concepts.

It's not so much about having a right to those things per se, it's about the right not to be discriminated against because of your ideology. In this case, political ideology has been invoked. What if the Bank had decided they won't provide services to a prominent Muslims because they disagree with Islamic ideology. Or a prominent Jew because they don't agree with Zionist Ideology. Or a prominent Trans person because they don't agree with Gender Ideology?

I don't like what Heck has done so far or some of what he's planning to do but if we want to be able to match the sky 6 on the pitch we're going to have to maximise revenue. Unfortunately that means appealing more to the hospitality market and attracting a bigger share of the "tourist" fanbase. If we want to remain "traditional" I doubt we'd ever be truly competitive at the top end. It's sad but seems the only way now.

Only saw bits as my stream kept stopping. From what I saw we looked out of sorts again. We don't seem to have got going properly this season, especially away from home, except for Burnley. Passing is sloppy compared to last season, and the defence is too easily got at. We definitely seem to be missing Ming's leadership at the back, and I also think we miss that tricky little number 10 type like Buendia/Coutinho, especially with McGinn misfiring. Unai knows best but I still think it might be a mistake not keeping Coutinho. That said we still have players bedding in, or coming back from injury, we're 6th in the table with a positive goal difference having played 4 away including three of the sky 6+1 and only 2 at home. I think we could be quite good once we are firing on all cylinders. Unusual to see such heavy criticism of the ref when we've won, so he must have been bad. Got the red right though - eventually.

This guy was imported form Australia because he was supposed to be one of the best around. I've seen him have a few shockers.

The Brighton result is relevant as context. For teams inexperienced in Europe it shows that European games are a different ball-game and adaptation is needed, even for very good teams with very good coaches. There aren't many "easy" games especially away from home where teams will raise their games against more illustrious opponents, crowds will be loud and hostile, and journeys may be tiring. After the Euro ban in the 80s it took English teams years to get back up to speed in the 90s and be able to regularly challenge. If you are not bang on it, show any complacency, or think you can cruise past teams from lesser leagues, this is a reminder that you'll be punished. You could arguably say the same for the AZ result, albeit they are experienced in European competition. That said you'd have expected experienced coaches like De Zerbi and Emery to prepare their teams accordingly.

Can they drink pitch side there though?

Emery has to carry the can for that. Strategy should be to aim to win the first three group games with strongest team, then, when qualification is more or less secure, think about rotating. At the very least, away from home first, play your strongest defence and DM, keep it tight, quieten the crowd then maybe look to go for the kill. I'm afraid it smacked of underestimating Legia, or overestimating his squad players. For someone of Emery's experience that's a bit unexpected. Legia were pressing so hard I thought they would tire, but they didn't seem to. And fair play to them they looked well up for it, worked hard, were sharp, fast and they took their chances. Great atmosphere but wonder how much vodka was involved.

They are working very hard pressing. Hopefully they will tire badly on 70-ish minutes. Should have gone with a first choice defence and no Bailey away from home. Chambers is clearly not a right back, should only play DM, maybe CB if needed. Or maybe not. It's nice to have a couple of big fast powerful units up front but we're not getting it to them enough. Digne!!!

Ok. I was going to say first of all it isn't a defence of Brand. I was also going to say him not being funny has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence. I was also going to say I happen to agree, he is one of the worst so-called comedians I've ever heard. But then I noticed you are posting in black font so there's no need.

How so?

Well you say that, I assume sarcastically, but....

There's a joke thread you know. Try and make them funny though eh?

It didn't look sarcastic to me, but if you say so, then apologies. Does that mean you do think we should accept people are what they claim to be rather than what they say and do? And this isn't Villa's fan base, it's a tiny sub-set of them, and there are posts on the Brand thread and the Peterson thread that, to me at least, suggest some rather extreme left wing views. As you say it's a stereotypical view to say the majority of Villa fans come from a couple of posh areas, and that as such they would be right wing or Tories. It's patently not true - for example what about Erdington, Kingstanding, Great Barr? I live in Sutton Coldfield, I've never voted Tory in my life and would never do so. I regard myself as a moderate, left of centre, a "soft" socialist. I have dislike and distaste for extreme political views of all hues. I also disagree quite strongly with a lot of what the so-called progressive left do and say. Not the principles, which I can see are are based on kindness, inclusivity, equality, supporting the disenfranchised and marginalised, it's more the authoritarian, brook no dissent way some of them go about policing the application of those principles.

Well it was in response to a right wing cliche bingo card, so apologies if it is considered off topic. I happen to think it is very relevant to the kind of attitudes seem to be informing a lot of the posts about celebrity scandals. But point taken.

I know, Just wanted to make a point it works both ways.

I didn't get it exactly right but but on the Peterson thread you said: "Carl Benjamin classes himself as a ‘Sensible Centrist’ so I really think we shouldn’t be listening to what people class themselves as, and look at their politics instead."

I'm sure you aren't

Well since it references the opposite arguments to Loxtocks, if this is a right wing one then his is a left wing one. Take your pick.

Let's not judge them on who they are, let's judge them on their politics - didn't you say something like that?