FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Angela Rayner Basic Instinct ploy
Angela Rayner Basic Instinct ploy
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tories accuse Angela Rayner of Basic Instinct ploy to distract Boris:...Newspaper article Im not a voter in The UK but is that the level that certain newspapers think is acceptable and accurate nowadays in political discussions" Has Angela been disco dancing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Or maybe she’s just having an affair with him already. They’ve been flirting across the aisles for months." I very much doubt it. Nadine Dorries plainly has though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Or maybe she’s just having an affair with him already. They’ve been flirting across the aisles for months. I very much doubt it. Nadine Dorries plainly has though." She's a bit bonkers....downstreaming a tennis pitch | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What!? "According to The Sunday Mail....she's opening her legs to distract Borris | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What!?
According to The Sunday Mail....she's opening her legs to distract Borris "Yeah I read it and the bit about how she did it because she couldn't match his debating skills (on lol) because she hadn't been to Oxford. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 ) fell asleep draped over the benches. Was he trying to distract women by laying in a sexy pose? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Appalling that any woman should be subjected to such blatant sexism" Agreed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Jesus everlasting Christ! J. Rees-Mog (which auto corrects to free kick ) fell asleep draped over the benches. Was he trying to distract women by laying in a sexy pose?"Phwoar !!!! Rees-Mogg makes my minge soggy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Gutter press at its very best,sickening and depressing, this is the level newspapers are willing to fall when the real stories are totally ignored, if this is freedom of speech I start to question my support of it "I guess they print it because there are people that gobble it up. Its always an anonymous source, unless these people are willing to put their name to the allegations, they should keep their mouth shut or the journalists should refuse to report it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Jesus everlasting Christ! J. Rees-Mog (which auto corrects to free kick ) fell asleep draped over the benches. Was he trying to distract women by laying in a sexy pose?
Phwoar !!!! Rees-Mogg makes my minge soggy"He reminds me of Lord Snooty from The Beano  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She just isn’t the sort of person I’d want in government. Her and Starmar don’t even get along!! "  this!
She’s thick as a plank! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" She’s thick as a plank! " Do you think this just because she has a northern accent ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" She’s thick as a plank! Do you think this just because she has a northern accent ? " Although accent does have a bearing, she left school pregnant at 16 with no qualifications and went into care work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Do you think this just because she has a northern accent ? Although accent does have a bearing" This is deeply insulting to all northerners | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you not consider that she didn't take her exams because she was pregnant at 15, not because she was thick ?" She shouldn’t be a pregnant child in the first place!!!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you not consider that she didn't take her exams because she was pregnant at 15, not because she was thick ? She shouldn’t be a pregnant child in the first place!!!!! " How is this relevant to the accusations of trying to distract Boris Johnson?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you not consider that she didn't take her exams because she was pregnant at 15, not because she was thick ? She shouldn’t be a pregnant child in the first place!!!!! How is this relevant to the accusations of trying to distract Boris Johnson? "She cannot make a decent argument do she has to cross and uncross her legs like Sharon Stone in “Basic Instinct” to try to distract him or to try and flirt with him. Low rent, but can’t expect much more from her! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you not consider that she didn't take her exams because she was pregnant at 15, not because she was thick ? She shouldn’t be a pregnant child in the first place!!!!! How is this relevant to the accusations of trying to distract Boris Johnson?
She cannot make a decent argument do she has to cross and uncross her legs like Sharon Stone in “Basic Instinct” to try to distract him or to try and flirt with him. Low rent, but can’t expect much more from her! "While standing behind the despatch box? That's a talent for sure | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What about the men that used to sit opposite Theresa May Did they ever get accused of sitting there with their legs open trying to distract her from her job " . How about Margaret Thatcher who I wonder, tried to beguile her into blustering her way through an argument? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" She’s thick as a plank! Do you think this just because she has a northern accent ? Although accent does have a bearing, she left school pregnant at 16 with no qualifications and went into care work. " So you think northerners and care workers are thick? Which of the current cabinet are members of MENSA? Dorries? Truss? Rees-Mogg? Johnson? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you not consider that she didn't take her exams because she was pregnant at 15, not because she was thick ? She shouldn’t be a pregnant child in the first place!!!!! How is this relevant to the accusations of trying to distract Boris Johnson?
She cannot make a decent argument do she has to cross and uncross her legs like Sharon Stone in “Basic Instinct” to try to distract him or to try and flirt with him. Low rent, but can’t expect much more from her! "You believe the crap that the Mail publishes? No hope, is there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What about the men that used to sit opposite Theresa May Did they ever get accused of sitting there with their legs open trying to distract her from her job . How about Margaret Thatcher who I wonder, tried to beguile her into blustering her way through an argument?"Straight away thinking of Spitting Image | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you not consider that she didn't take her exams because she was pregnant at 15, not because she was thick ? She shouldn’t be a pregnant child in the first place!!!!! " 15yo makes a mistake yet works her way up. Condemn her for life. Grown man sires a number of children and cant do his job because he sees some flesh. Forgive, forgive, forgive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you not consider that she didn't take her exams because she was pregnant at 15, not because she was thick ? She shouldn’t be a pregnant child in the first place!!!!! How is this relevant to the accusations of trying to distract Boris Johnson?
She cannot make a decent argument do she has to cross and uncross her legs like Sharon Stone in “Basic Instinct” to try to distract him or to try and flirt with him. Low rent, but can’t expect much more from her!
You believe the crap that the Mail publishes? No hope, is there."On the French elections thread she openly admits to being proud of being a misinformed bigot. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you not consider that she didn't take her exams because she was pregnant at 15, not because she was thick ? She shouldn’t be a pregnant child in the first place!!!!! 15yo makes a mistake yet works her way up. Condemn her for life. Grown man sires a number of children and cant do his job because he sees some flesh. Forgive, forgive, forgive. " This, all day long. If he lacks self control to this level he should't be making decisions affecting people in the same room, never mind the whole country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What about the men that used to sit opposite Theresa May Did they ever get accused of sitting there with their legs open trying to distract her from her job " They wear trousers, so nothing to see! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you not consider that she didn't take her exams because she was pregnant at 15, not because she was thick ? She shouldn’t be a pregnant child in the first place!!!!! How is this relevant to the accusations of trying to distract Boris Johnson?
She cannot make a decent argument do she has to cross and uncross her legs like Sharon Stone in “Basic Instinct” to try to distract him or to try and flirt with him. Low rent, but can’t expect much more from her!
You believe the crap that the Mail publishes? No hope, is there."You mean what most people think, yes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Grown man sires a number of children and cant do his job because he sees some flesh. Forgive, forgive, forgive. " You are assuming the Mail on Sunday is correct about her "flaunting her flesh" rather than realising they have just made it up to put the Labour Deputy Leader in a bad light to detract from Johnson's lies and law breaking | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" One MP said: ‘She knows she can’t compete with Boris’s Oxford Union debating training, but she has other skills which he lacks " Ah yes, constantly repeating lies and unable to concentrate when a woman is in front of him demonstrates his Oxford Union debating skills. It just shows that the Tories, along with their friends in the right wing media, only see women as sex objects who offer nothing but using their bodies to leverage sex. These people are living in the 1970s and I'm disgusted by anyone in this forum supporting it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you not consider that she didn't take her exams because she was pregnant at 15, not because she was thick ? She shouldn’t be a pregnant child in the first place!!!!! How is this relevant to the accusations of trying to distract Boris Johnson?
She cannot make a decent argument do she has to cross and uncross her legs like Sharon Stone in “Basic Instinct” to try to distract him or to try and flirt with him. Low rent, but can’t expect much more from her!
You believe the crap that the Mail publishes? No hope, is there.
You mean what most people think, yes. "Yeah, most people don't think that but keep telling yourself that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Master has instructed me to write a disgusting sexist article to distract everyone from Alexander Johnson's fuckups! This is an actual quote from the article: One MP said: ‘She knows she can’t compete with Boris’s Oxford Union debating training, but she has other skills which he lacks Ah yes, constantly repeating lies and unable to concentrate when a woman is in front of him demonstrates his Oxford Union debating skills. It just shows that the Tories, along with their friends in the right wing media, only see women as sex objects who offer nothing but using their bodies to leverage sex. These people are living in the 1970s and I'm disgusted by anyone in this forum supporting it. " She cannot debate for toffee!! As for sexist remarks - no not at all! Your views are your views and you are entitled to them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you not consider that she didn't take her exams because she was pregnant at 15, not because she was thick ? She shouldn’t be a pregnant child in the first place!!!!! How is this relevant to the accusations of trying to distract Boris Johnson?
She cannot make a decent argument do she has to cross and uncross her legs like Sharon Stone in “Basic Instinct” to try to distract him or to try and flirt with him. Low rent, but can’t expect much more from her!
You believe the crap that the Mail publishes? No hope, is there.
You mean what most people think, yes.
Yeah, most people don't think that but keep telling yourself that "Not everyone is a leftie… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you not consider that she didn't take her exams because she was pregnant at 15, not because she was thick ? She shouldn’t be a pregnant child in the first place!!!!! How is this relevant to the accusations of trying to distract Boris Johnson?
She cannot make a decent argument do she has to cross and uncross her legs like Sharon Stone in “Basic Instinct” to try to distract him or to try and flirt with him. Low rent, but can’t expect much more from her!
You believe the crap that the Mail publishes? No hope, is there.
You mean what most people think, yes.
Yeah, most people don't think that but keep telling yourself that
Not everyone is a leftie…"Sexism and misogyny isn't political, but Tories seem to think it's leftism and being woke. Then again, Tories seem to think anything that opposes their ignorant views is leftism or wokeness. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you not consider that she didn't take her exams because she was pregnant at 15, not because she was thick ? She shouldn’t be a pregnant child in the first place!!!!! How is this relevant to the accusations of trying to distract Boris Johnson?
She cannot make a decent argument do she has to cross and uncross her legs like Sharon Stone in “Basic Instinct” to try to distract him or to try and flirt with him. Low rent, but can’t expect much more from her!
You believe the crap that the Mail publishes? No hope, is there.
You mean what most people think, yes. "The word "think" is out of place in that context. It's bilge. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think that people should stop assuming that because a woman crosses or uncrosses her legs it's either for the benefit of men, to distract them or tempt them . Jesus everlasting Christ! J. Rees-Mog (which auto corrects to free kick ) fell asleep draped over the benches. Was he trying to distract women by laying in a sexy pose?"
Manwhohasitall on Twitter does a great job of showing what utter bullshit all this is.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you not consider that she didn't take her exams because she was pregnant at 15, not because she was thick ? She shouldn’t be a pregnant child in the first place!!!!! How is this relevant to the accusations of trying to distract Boris Johnson?
She cannot make a decent argument do she has to cross and uncross her legs like Sharon Stone in “Basic Instinct” to try to distract him or to try and flirt with him. Low rent, but can’t expect much more from her! "Says the woman on a sex site....... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She's lovely. They're just jealous "They’re also sc*aping the bottom if the barrel when it comes to deflection tactics! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She's lovely. They're just jealous
They’re also sc*aping the bottom if the barrel when it comes to deflection tactics! "One might say that using a pussy as a dead cat is taking it too far. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mitzi999 - what do you think about Nadine Dorries' intellect ?" Aspirational to reach is my guess  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mitzi999 - what do you think about Nadine Dorries' intellect ? Aspirational to reach is my guess "It's got great depth; bottom of the barrel. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you not consider that she didn't take her exams because she was pregnant at 15, not because she was thick ? She shouldn’t be a pregnant child in the first place!!!!! How is this relevant to the accusations of trying to distract Boris Johnson?
She cannot make a decent argument do she has to cross and uncross her legs like Sharon Stone in “Basic Instinct” to try to distract him or to try and flirt with him. Low rent, but can’t expect much more from her! "I always have been a fan of john Betjeman | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the Tories parade any number of cunts on the front bench every week, and then a leading female politician dares wear a short(ish) skirt and all hell erupts? Any if the PM is so easily distracted, then what does that say about him? Pathetic. " Except this PM didn't start this, the Mail did. The PM has supported her in this very publicly. TYPO. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the fact that Angela Raynor is an attractive sexy woman does not have anything to do with her ability to very effectively debate in the HOC " Wondering if you are joking here? If not - why mention her looks at all? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the Tories parade any number of cunts on the front bench every week, and then a leading female politician dares wear a short(ish) skirt and all hell erupts? Any if the PM is so easily distracted, then what does that say about him? Pathetic. Except this PM didn't start this, the Mail did. The PM has supported her in this very publicly. TYPO." has he done more than just tweet ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Except this PM didn't start this, the Mail did. The PM has supported her in this very publicly. " The PM said on Twitter "As much as I disagree with AR on almost every political issue I respect her as a parliamentarian and deplore the misogyny diected at her anonymously today" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the Tories parade any number of cunts on the front bench every week, and then a leading female politician dares wear a short(ish) skirt and all hell erupts? Any if the PM is so easily distracted, then what does that say about him? Pathetic. Except this PM didn't start this, the Mail did. The PM has supported her in this very publicly. TYPO.has he done more than just tweet ? " Not sure what your point is? Tweeting is just about as public as you can get. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"has he done more than just tweet ? " What do you expect him to do ? Punch the journalist and the editor of the Mail on Sunday ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the Tories parade any number of cunts on the front bench every week, and then a leading female politician dares wear a short(ish) skirt and all hell erupts? Any if the PM is so easily distracted, then what does that say about him? Pathetic. Except this PM didn't start this, the Mail did. The PM has supported her in this very publicly. TYPO." I din’t think anything in my post accused the PM of anything. It was about the topic not the actors. The premise was pathetic whoever raised it. But good on Boris for calling out the bull shit if he’s done so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bojo's probably just trying to get an eyeful of the woolsack." . . . and in a thread about misogyny we have . . . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the Tories parade any number of cunts on the front bench every week, and then a leading female politician dares wear a short(ish) skirt and all hell erupts? Any if the PM is so easily distracted, then what does that say about him? Pathetic. Except this PM didn't start this, the Mail did. The PM has supported her in this very publicly. TYPO. I din’t think anything in my post accused the PM of anything. It was about the topic not the actors. The premise was pathetic whoever raised it. But good on Boris for calling out the bull shit if he’s done so. " Then good for you. It needs to be called out.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you not consider that she didn't take her exams because she was pregnant at 15, not because she was thick ? She shouldn’t be a pregnant child in the first place!!!!! How is this relevant to the accusations of trying to distract Boris Johnson?
She cannot make a decent argument do she has to cross and uncross her legs like Sharon Stone in “Basic Instinct” to try to distract him or to try and flirt with him. Low rent, but can’t expect much more from her!
Says the woman on a sex site......."And so? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the Tories parade any number of cunts on the front bench every week, and then a leading female politician dares wear a short(ish) skirt and all hell erupts? Any if the PM is so easily distracted, then what does that say about him? Pathetic. Except this PM didn't start this, the Mail did. The PM has supported her in this very publicly. TYPO.has he done more than just tweet ? Not sure what your point is? Tweeting is just about as public as you can get. " I ask because nadine dorries had the indentical tweet. Makes me cynical tbh. If his MPs are saying such things, I'd like him to take some action to get this attitude out of his party. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bojo's probably just trying to get an eyeful of the woolsack. . . . and in a thread about misogyny we have . . . " The thread isn't about misogyny mate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the Tories parade any number of cunts on the front bench every week, and then a leading female politician dares wear a short(ish) skirt and all hell erupts? Any if the PM is so easily distracted, then what does that say about him? Pathetic. Except this PM didn't start this, the Mail did. The PM has supported her in this very publicly. TYPO.has he done more than just tweet ? Not sure what your point is? Tweeting is just about as public as you can get. I ask because nadine dorries had the indentical tweet. Makes me cynical tbh. If his MPs are saying such things, I'd like him to take some action to get this attitude out of his party. " He has said something - that all his party will have read and be aware of by now . . . but remember, Misogyny is a 'doing' word - and you either do it or you don't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bojo's probably just trying to get an eyeful of the woolsack. . . . and in a thread about misogyny we have . . . The thread isn't about misogyny mate "What else is it about then? Male MPs resorting to accusing a female of using sexual allure to destruct a male because of a lack of intellect/debate training. Assuming the MoS has not made the whole thing up, then these comments are the very definition of misogyny! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bojo's probably just trying to get an eyeful of the woolsack. . . . and in a thread about misogyny we have . . . The thread isn't about misogyny mate "Oh dear! What is it about then? PS. Not your Mate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mitzi999 - what do you think about Nadine Dorries' intellect ?" Firstly, Nadine Dorries suffers from dyslexia, and trained as a nurse, later going on to run her own business and then become a director at BUPA because of her medical background. After this, she began her career in politics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bojo's probably just trying to get an eyeful of the woolsack. . . . and in a thread about misogyny we have . . . The thread isn't about misogyny mate
Oh dear! What is it about then?
PS. Not your Mate. "Read the title love. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bojo's probably just trying to get an eyeful of the woolsack. . . . and in a thread about misogyny we have . . . The thread isn't about misogyny mate
Oh dear! What is it about then?
PS. Not your Mate.
Read the title love. "Read the article . . . But first use an online dictionary and find the meaning of Misogyny, then go and find the Mail article and then come back and tell us what it is about. PS. Not your LOVE either. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" She’s thick as a plank! Do you think this just because she has a northern accent ? Although accent does have a bearing, she left school pregnant at 16 with no qualifications and went into care work. " Accent makes you thick ?? Wow.. So Aneurin Bevan with his broad Welsh accent created the welfare state by accident. And yet if we compare your obviously superior brain can you compare your own achievements with her becoming an MP and joining the shadow cabinet, so if she comes to office she will be a government minister? I’m sure you have done so much better. You comments expose more about you and your prejudice than any slur on Angela. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" She’s thick as a plank! Do you think this just because she has a northern accent ? Although accent does have a bearing, she left school pregnant at 16 with no qualifications and went into care work. Accent makes you thick ?? Wow.. So Aneurin Bevan with his broad Welsh accent created the welfare state by accident. And yet if we compare your obviously superior brain can you compare your own achievements with her becoming an MP and joining the shadow cabinet, so if she comes to office she will be a government minister? I’m sure you have done so much better. You comments expose more about you and your prejudice than any slur on Angela. " It’s perception. And yes, her accent is awful! My private life is private, but I have done far better than her! In fact, a lot of people have!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I ask because nadine dorries had the indentical tweet. Makes me cynical tbh. " Very disappointing. Show they are both just parrots without minds of their own | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I ask because nadine dorries had the indentical tweet. Makes me cynical tbh. Very disappointing. Show they are both just parrots without minds of their own" It's almost as if it was written for them and ready to publish... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bojo's probably just trying to get an eyeful of the woolsack. . . . and in a thread about misogyny we have . . . The thread isn't about misogyny mate
Oh dear! What is it about then?
PS. Not your Mate.
Read the title love.
Read the article . . . But first use an online dictionary and find the meaning of Misogyny, then go and find the Mail article and then come back and tell us what it is about.
PS. Not your LOVE either."Nothing to do with the article - you said "and in a thread about misogyny we have..." and I responded to that. Come on pal, at least read what you write | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nothing to do with the article - you said "and in a thread about misogyny we have..." and I responded to that. Come on pal, at least read what you write "The whole thread is about misogyny. Title included. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bojo's probably just trying to get an eyeful of the woolsack. . . . and in a thread about misogyny we have . . . The thread isn't about misogyny mate
Oh dear! What is it about then?
PS. Not your Mate.
Read the title love.
Read the article . . . But first use an online dictionary and find the meaning of Misogyny, then go and find the Mail article and then come back and tell us what it is about.
PS. Not your LOVE either.
Nothing to do with the article - you said "and in a thread about misogyny we have..." and I responded to that. Come on pal, at least read what you write "what do you see this thread as being about ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... but remember, Misogyny is a 'doing' word ..." Actually 'misogyny' is a noun, not a verb. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... but remember, Misogyny is a 'doing' word ... Actually 'misogyny' is a noun, not a verb." And when coupled with a 'determiner' it becomes a doing word . . . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mitzi999 - what do you think about Nadine Dorries' intellect ? Firstly, Nadine Dorries suffers from dyslexia, and trained as a nurse, later going on to run her own business and then become a director at BUPA because of her medical background. After this, she began her career in politics. " She suffers from being over promoted , out of her depth and as thick as shit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... but remember, Misogyny is a 'doing' word ... Actually 'misogyny' is a noun, not a verb. And when coupled with a 'determiner' it becomes a doing word . . . " Misogyny can surely be displayed or practised through verbs, but cannot itself be a verb surely? At best it would be an advective to describe the act. It is a name for a state of mind I though. You can display it but not do it. Could be wrong though. Did not go to Oxford after all, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tories accuse Angela Rayner of Basic Instinct ploy to distract Boris:...Newspaper article Im not a voter in The UK but is that the level that certain newspapers think is acceptable and accurate nowadays in political discussions " One simple mistake in your OP, you implied the Mail on Sunday was a “newspaper”. It is quite clearly a gossip sheet tabloid masquerading as a serious paper and the only serious use that paper could be put to is in the bathroom! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Appalling that any woman should be subjected to such blatant sexism" 2nd that. Got the Tories rattled if they're stooping this low | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She just isn’t the sort of person I’d want in government. Her and Starmar don’t even get along!! this!
She’s thick as a plank! "More importantly Mitzi, do you agree with this sexist misogynistic rubbish? Are women only to be viewed as sexual beings by men? Are they manikins or are they allowed to move? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you not consider that she didn't take her exams because she was pregnant at 15, not because she was thick ? She shouldn’t be a pregnant child in the first place!!!!! How is this relevant to the accusations of trying to distract Boris Johnson?
She cannot make a decent argument do she has to cross and uncross her legs like Sharon Stone in “Basic Instinct” to try to distract him or to try and flirt with him. Low rent, but can’t expect much more from her!
While standing behind the despatch box? That's a talent for sure"Thoughts of Kenny Everett spring to mind | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you not consider that she didn't take her exams because she was pregnant at 15, not because she was thick ? She shouldn’t be a pregnant child in the first place!!!!! 15yo makes a mistake yet works her way up. Condemn her for life. Grown man sires a number of children and cant do his job because he sees some flesh. Forgive, forgive, forgive. " Post of the day | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She just isn’t the sort of person I’d want in government. Her and Starmar don’t even get along!! " With you there! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Jesus everlasting Christ! J. Rees-Mog (which auto corrects to free kick ) fell asleep draped over the benches. Was he trying to distract women by laying in a sexy pose?
Phwoar !!!! Rees-Mogg makes my minge soggy"Hahahahaha | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Appalling that any woman should be subjected to such blatant sexism 2nd that. Got the Tories rattled if they're stooping this low "It was the Mail. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She just isn’t the sort of person I’d want in government. Her and Starmar don’t even get along!! With you there! " Why exactly? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When one practices misogyny, it becomes the 'act of misogyny' the 'act' is the determiner. Misogyny can sit as a word in abject silence to it's real world state as a descriptor. Just as a car is just a car (noun) But a car moving is really a car doing. Misogyny being acted upon is misogyny in the 'act of doing'." You have a very unique view of how the English language works. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Appalling that any woman should be subjected to such blatant sexism 2nd that. Got the Tories rattled if they're stooping this low
It was the Mail."This could actually be a triple bluff: 1. Distraction from partygate 2. Opportunity for Johnson to come out and condemn the misogyny and attempt to reclaim some moral highground 3. Buuut it leaves everyone still thinking that Johnson is incapable of focusing on important state business if a pair of pins are on display! So it is still intended to damage Johnson ultimately! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When one practices misogyny, it becomes the 'act of misogyny' the 'act' is the determiner. Misogyny can sit as a word in abject silence to it's real world state as a descriptor. Just as a car is just a car (noun) But a car moving is really a car doing. Misogyny being acted upon is misogyny in the 'act of doing'. You have a very unique view of how the English language works." And yet I majored. Go figure. But that apart. You can split the argument into a million billion atoms of detraction. It would all come down to the same meaning - if you practice misogyny (please do read exactly what I wrote with regard to not doing or doing - 'the determiner') and maybe we can talk about misogyny as an act that really needs to be addressed for the betterment of one half of Planet Earth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a Sunday news paper they have to fill it with something that's it end of." No it isn’t. They could fill it with REAL NEWS instead of salacious lies, gossip and bullshit. It is a hideous rag that too many people actually take seriously. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a Sunday news paper they have to fill it with something that's it end of. No it isn’t. They could fill it with REAL NEWS instead of salacious lies, gossip and bullshit. It is a hideous rag that too many people actually take seriously." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet I majored. Go figure." Are you an American? If so I take it all back. American English is very different to the language I speak. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a Sunday news paper they have to fill it with something that's it end of. No it isn’t. They could fill it with REAL NEWS instead of salacious lies, gossip and bullshit. It is a hideous rag that too many people actually take seriously." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They could fill it with REAL NEWS instead of salacious lies, gossip and bullshit." They could do that, but then their readers would abandon them. Mail readers like to be outraged, so the editors have to come up with an endless supply of stories that stoke the readers' righteous indignation. Sadly, that's what you get when you have a free press. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When one practices misogyny, it becomes the 'act of misogyny' the 'act' is the determiner. Misogyny can sit as a word in abject silence to it's real world state as a descriptor. Just as a car is just a car (noun) But a car moving is really a car doing. Misogyny being acted upon is misogyny in the 'act of doing'. You have a very unique view of how the English language works. And yet I majored. Go figure. But that apart. You can split the argument into a million billion atoms of detraction. It would all come down to the same meaning - if you practice misogyny (please do read exactly what I wrote with regard to not doing or doing - 'the determiner') and maybe we can talk about misogyny as an act that really needs to be addressed for the betterment of one half of Planet Earth. " I think some if us are coming form the teal world application of the word’s meaning via the academic/dictionary meaning based in the etymology. I’ll go with the dictionary definition until hey change it. So we can maybe agree to disagree in the type of word it is. (I think of in terms of separate elements of mens rea and actus reus - whereas you’re combing the two - i think) anyhooo…. More importantly we seem to be in agreement it has no place in society and needs to be eradicated for the betterment of all the population! (mr). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet I majored. Go figure. Are you an American? If so I take it all back. American English is very different to the language I speak." Shucks! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet I majored. Go figure. Are you an American? If so I take it all back. American English is very different to the language I speak. Shucks! "Half French - Half English. Husband is Half American - Half English. Though I have no idea why that would be part of this conversation, whatsoever. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When one practices misogyny, it becomes the 'act of misogyny' the 'act' is the determiner. Misogyny can sit as a word in abject silence to it's real world state as a descriptor. Just as a car is just a car (noun) But a car moving is really a car doing. Misogyny being acted upon is misogyny in the 'act of doing'. You have a very unique view of how the English language works. And yet I majored. Go figure. But that apart. You can split the argument into a million billion atoms of detraction. It would all come down to the same meaning - if you practice misogyny (please do read exactly what I wrote with regard to not doing or doing - 'the determiner') and maybe we can talk about misogyny as an act that really needs to be addressed for the betterment of one half of Planet Earth. I think some if us are coming form the teal world application of the word’s meaning via the academic/dictionary meaning based in the etymology. I’ll go with the dictionary definition until hey change it. So we can maybe agree to disagree in the type of word it is. (I think of in terms of separate elements of mens rea and actus reus - whereas you’re combing the two - i think) anyhooo…. More importantly we seem to be in agreement it has no place in society and needs to be eradicated for the betterment of all the population! (mr). " Next, look up the 'modifier determiner'. Which I placed in the proper place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet I majored. Go figure. Are you an American? If so I take it all back. American English is very different to the language I speak. Shucks!
Half French - Half English.
Husband is Half American - Half English.
Though I have no idea why that would be part of this conversation, whatsoever.
"Because you said you majored. Which is American. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet I majored. Go figure. Are you an American? If so I take it all back. American English is very different to the language I speak. Shucks!
Half French - Half English.
Husband is Half American - Half English.
Though I have no idea why that would be part of this conversation, whatsoever.
Because you said you majored. Which is American."So? How is this helping the discussion of the OP and Misogyny? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a Sunday news paper they have to fill it with something that's it end of. No it isn’t. They could fill it with REAL NEWS instead of salacious lies, gossip and bullshit. It is a hideous rag that too many people actually take seriously. I think deep down you miss the News of the world " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" She’s thick as a plank! Do you think this just because she has a northern accent ? Although accent does have a bearing, she left school pregnant at 16 with no qualifications and went into care work. Accent makes you thick ?? Wow.. So Aneurin Bevan with his broad Welsh accent created the welfare state by accident. And yet if we compare your obviously superior brain can you compare your own achievements with her becoming an MP and joining the shadow cabinet, so if she comes to office she will be a government minister? I’m sure you have done so much better. You comments expose more about you and your prejudice than any slur on Angela. It’s perception. And yes, her accent is awful! My private life is private, but I have done far better than her! In fact, a lot of people have!! " It’s ignorance and prejudice actually but you keep believing. I’m sure bu your measure you have done fantastically well. Other measures I’m not so sure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a Sunday news paper they have to fill it with something that's it end of. No it isn’t. They could fill it with REAL NEWS instead of salacious lies, gossip and bullshit. It is a hideous rag that too many people actually take seriously." . The Sunday Mail have a circulation of 767, 000 copies . Do you actually read the Sunday Mail or have you just formed your opinion based on heresay. ? I do not think that those whose choose to buy the Sunday Mail would regard it as a rag nor would those newsagents who sell it . It has many award winning journalists. Whilst everyone is entitled to an opinion your description of it as a rag is only held by a very small proportion of the population . It would be a bit of a stretch to conclude that there are 767000 stupid readers . These are people who actually pay to read it. Angela Rayner is hardly even worth discussing . She considers it acceptable to call people scum which is an appalling reflection on her as an individual . Not exactly a very nice person or a desirable attribute to have | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tories accuse Angela Rayner of Basic Instinct ploy to distract Boris:...Newspaper article Im not a voter in The UK but is that the level that certain newspapers think is acceptable and accurate nowadays in political discussions " Distraction and basic misogyny. It's getting pretty desperate if that's where they are. I agree that it may also be cynically enough planned to give BoJo an opportunity to look like a white knight too. Misogyny in is a noun, not a verb. Misogynistic is an adjective. I misoginise You misoginise We misoginise He/she/it misoginises They misiginise I don't think so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a Sunday news paper they have to fill it with something that's it end of. No it isn’t. They could fill it with REAL NEWS instead of salacious lies, gossip and bullshit. It is a hideous rag that too many people actually take seriously.. The Sunday Mail have a circulation of 767, 000 copies . Do you actually read the Sunday Mail or have you just formed your opinion based on heresay. ? I do not think that those whose choose to buy the Sunday Mail would regard it as a rag nor would those newsagents who sell it . It has many award winning journalists. Whilst everyone is entitled to an opinion your description of it as a rag is only held by a very small proportion of the population . It would be a bit of a stretch to conclude that there are 767000 stupid readers . These are people who actually pay to read it. Angela Rayner is hardly even worth discussing . She considers it acceptable to call people scum which is an appalling reflection on her as an individual . Not exactly a very nice person or a desirable attribute to have " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet I majored. Go figure. Are you an American? If so I take it all back. American English is very different to the language I speak. Shucks!
Half French - Half English.
Husband is Half American - Half English.
Though I have no idea why that would be part of this conversation, whatsoever.
Because you said you majored. Which is American.
So?
How is this helping the discussion of the OP and Misogyny? "As this thread is apparently about misogyny, and misogyny is defined as "hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women" how is to be applied to Rayner? Perhaps you could use your linguistic skills to define what a woman is for those of us who aren't "majors"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet I majored. Go figure. Are you an American? If so I take it all back. American English is very different to the language I speak. Shucks!
Half French - Half English.
Husband is Half American - Half English.
Though I have no idea why that would be part of this conversation, whatsoever.
Because you said you majored. Which is American.
So?
How is this helping the discussion of the OP and Misogyny?
As this thread is apparently about misogyny, and misogyny is defined as "hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women" how is to be applied to Rayner? Perhaps you could use your linguistic skills to define what a woman is for those of us who aren't "majors"?"read the article - decide that for yourself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet I majored. Go figure. Are you an American? If so I take it all back. American English is very different to the language I speak. Shucks!
Half French - Half English.
Husband is Half American - Half English.
Though I have no idea why that would be part of this conversation, whatsoever.
Because you said you majored. Which is American.
So?
How is this helping the discussion of the OP and Misogyny?
As this thread is apparently about misogyny, and misogyny is defined as "hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women" how is to be applied to Rayner? Perhaps you could use your linguistic skills to define what a woman is for those of us who aren't "majors"?
read the article - decide that for yourself. "I don't read the Mail. Are you afraid to give me your definition? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet I majored. Go figure. Are you an American? If so I take it all back. American English is very different to the language I speak. Shucks!
Half French - Half English.
Husband is Half American - Half English.
Though I have no idea why that would be part of this conversation, whatsoever.
Because you said you majored. Which is American.
So?
How is this helping the discussion of the OP and Misogyny?
As this thread is apparently about misogyny, and misogyny is defined as "hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women" how is to be applied to Rayner? Perhaps you could use your linguistic skills to define what a woman is for those of us who aren't "majors"?
read the article - decide that for yourself.
I don't read the Mail. Are you afraid to give me your definition?"Being female, I properly know what misogyny is. Being baited by some who clearly doesn't, really isn't going to work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet I majored. Go figure. Are you an American? If so I take it all back. American English is very different to the language I speak. Shucks!
Half French - Half English.
Husband is Half American - Half English.
Though I have no idea why that would be part of this conversation, whatsoever.
Because you said you majored. Which is American.
So?
How is this helping the discussion of the OP and Misogyny?
As this thread is apparently about misogyny, and misogyny is defined as "hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women" how is to be applied to Rayner? Perhaps you could use your linguistic skills to define what a woman is for those of us who aren't "majors"?
read the article - decide that for yourself.
I don't read the Mail. Are you afraid to give me your definition?
Being female, I properly know what misogyny is. Being baited by some who clearly doesn't, really isn't going to work. "Ah, the old "I'm just a poor woman being bullied by a big nasty man" ploy. Are you incapable of defining what a woman is, or just afraid? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet I majored. Go figure. Are you an American? If so I take it all back. American English is very different to the language I speak. Shucks!
Half French - Half English.
Husband is Half American - Half English.
Though I have no idea why that would be part of this conversation, whatsoever.
Because you said you majored. Which is American.
So?
How is this helping the discussion of the OP and Misogyny?
As this thread is apparently about misogyny, and misogyny is defined as "hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women" how is to be applied to Rayner? Perhaps you could use your linguistic skills to define what a woman is for those of us who aren't "majors"?
read the article - decide that for yourself.
I don't read the Mail. Are you afraid to give me your definition?
Being female, I properly know what misogyny is. Being baited by some who clearly doesn't, really isn't going to work.
Ah, the old "I'm just a poor woman being bullied by a big nasty man" ploy. Are you incapable of defining what a woman is, or just afraid?"I will leave you with that. See if you can work yourself through it. Good luck. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a Sunday news paper they have to fill it with something that's it end of. No it isn’t. They could fill it with REAL NEWS instead of salacious lies, gossip and bullshit. It is a hideous rag that too many people actually take seriously. I think deep down you miss the News of the world "Erm this seems to be quoting someone else saying about missing the NotW as it is greyed out so within the quote marks? Weird. Anyway, I would say without reservation the The Mail and The Mail on Sunday are/were far worse than any of the red top tabloids, inc NotW. At least anyone with a single brain cell knows not to take them too seriously. Sadly many people fo take the Mail seriously which is what makes it do dangerous and insideous! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet I majored. Go figure. Are you an American? If so I take it all back. American English is very different to the language I speak. Shucks!
Half French - Half English.
Husband is Half American - Half English.
Though I have no idea why that would be part of this conversation, whatsoever.
Because you said you majored. Which is American.
So?
How is this helping the discussion of the OP and Misogyny?
As this thread is apparently about misogyny, and misogyny is defined as "hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women" how is to be applied to Rayner? Perhaps you could use your linguistic skills to define what a woman is for those of us who aren't "majors"?
read the article - decide that for yourself.
I don't read the Mail. Are you afraid to give me your definition?
Being female, I properly know what misogyny is. Being baited by some who clearly doesn't, really isn't going to work.
Ah, the old "I'm just a poor woman being bullied by a big nasty man" ploy. Are you incapable of defining what a woman is, or just afraid?"You appear to be unable to identify misogyny. That is a problem that most misogynists have. Taking it to an extreme, the Nazis didn't think that they were doing anything wrong... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a Sunday news paper they have to fill it with something that's it end of. No it isn’t. They could fill it with REAL NEWS instead of salacious lies, gossip and bullshit. It is a hideous rag that too many people actually take seriously.. The Sunday Mail have a circulation of 767, 000 copies . Do you actually read the Sunday Mail or have you just formed your opinion based on heresay. ? I do not think that those whose choose to buy the Sunday Mail would regard it as a rag nor would those newsagents who sell it . It has many award winning journalists. Whilst everyone is entitled to an opinion your description of it as a rag is only held by a very small proportion of the population . It would be a bit of a stretch to conclude that there are 767000 stupid readers . These are people who actually pay to read it. Angela Rayner is hardly even worth discussing . She considers it acceptable to call people scum which is an appalling reflection on her as an individual . Not exactly a very nice person or a desirable attribute to have " Comedy Gold
My work requires me to read and be familiar with all major news outlets in the UK including The Mail so sadly I do have to read it. What this means is I have a broad exposure to wide ranging views from across the political spectrum.
The Mail is an insidious salacious rag that tries to hide behind a veneer of being a serious newspaper. It isn’t.
The Mail has been sued on multiple occasions and been found to have lied on numerous times and caused immeasurable damage to innocent people’s lives as a result.
And yeah, I do think the majority of people who buy that rag to be either stupid or have questionable morals themselves. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a Sunday news paper they have to fill it with something that's it end of. No it isn’t. They could fill it with REAL NEWS instead of salacious lies, gossip and bullshit. It is a hideous rag that too many people actually take seriously.. The Sunday Mail have a circulation of 767, 000 copies . Do you actually read the Sunday Mail or have you just formed your opinion based on heresay. ? I do not think that those whose choose to buy the Sunday Mail would regard it as a rag nor would those newsagents who sell it . It has many award winning journalists. Whilst everyone is entitled to an opinion your description of it as a rag is only held by a very small proportion of the population . It would be a bit of a stretch to conclude that there are 767000 stupid readers . These are people who actually pay to read it. Angela Rayner is hardly even worth discussing . She considers it acceptable to call people scum which is an appalling reflection on her as an individual . Not exactly a very nice person or a desirable attribute to have " hardly worth discussing. Yet has an article about her in the paper. If I paid for a paper that was filled with articles about people not worth discussing, I'd be annoyed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet I majored. Go figure. Are you an American? If so I take it all back. American English is very different to the language I speak. Shucks!
Half French - Half English.
Husband is Half American - Half English.
Though I have no idea why that would be part of this conversation, whatsoever.
Because you said you majored. Which is American.
So?
How is this helping the discussion of the OP and Misogyny?
As this thread is apparently about misogyny, and misogyny is defined as "hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women" how is to be applied to Rayner? Perhaps you could use your linguistic skills to define what a woman is for those of us who aren't "majors"?
read the article - decide that for yourself.
I don't read the Mail. Are you afraid to give me your definition?
Being female, I properly know what misogyny is. Being baited by some who clearly doesn't, really isn't going to work.
Ah, the old "I'm just a poor woman being bullied by a big nasty man" ploy. Are you incapable of defining what a woman is, or just afraid?
You appear to be unable to identify misogyny.
That is a problem that most misogynists have.
Taking it to an extreme, the Nazis didn't think that they were doing anything wrong..."A poor attempt at deflection old chap. The "nazis" reference is an old and well-worn internet trick to divert focus, nobody falls for that one anymore. I simply asked a question that should be easily answerable by someone who professes to be qualified in the English language. That they were incapable or unwilling to do so speaks volumes. Perhaps you'd like to take a crack if you're not afraid to do so. How do you personally define what a woman is? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet I majored. Go figure. Are you an American? If so I take it all back. American English is very different to the language I speak. Shucks!
Half French - Half English.
Husband is Half American - Half English.
Though I have no idea why that would be part of this conversation, whatsoever.
Because you said you majored. Which is American.
So?
How is this helping the discussion of the OP and Misogyny?
As this thread is apparently about misogyny, and misogyny is defined as "hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women" how is to be applied to Rayner? Perhaps you could use your linguistic skills to define what a woman is for those of us who aren't "majors"?
read the article - decide that for yourself.
I don't read the Mail. Are you afraid to give me your definition?
Being female, I properly know what misogyny is. Being baited by some who clearly doesn't, really isn't going to work.
Ah, the old "I'm just a poor woman being bullied by a big nasty man" ploy. Are you incapable of defining what a woman is, or just afraid?
You appear to be unable to identify misogyny.
That is a problem that most misogynists have.
Taking it to an extreme, the Nazis didn't think that they were doing anything wrong...
A poor attempt at deflection old chap. The "nazis" reference is an old and well-worn internet trick to divert focus, nobody falls for that one anymore. I simply asked a question that should be easily answerable by someone who professes to be qualified in the English language. That they were incapable or unwilling to do so speaks volumes. Perhaps you'd like to take a crack if you're not afraid to do so. How do you personally define what a woman is?"The 'willing' is all with you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a Sunday news paper they have to fill it with something that's it end of. No it isn’t. They could fill it with REAL NEWS instead of salacious lies, gossip and bullshit. It is a hideous rag that too many people actually take seriously.. The Sunday Mail have a circulation of 767, 000 copies . Do you actually read the Sunday Mail or have you just formed your opinion based on heresay. ? I do not think that those whose choose to buy the Sunday Mail would regard it as a rag nor would those newsagents who sell it . It has many award winning journalists. Whilst everyone is entitled to an opinion your description of it as a rag is only held by a very small proportion of the population . It would be a bit of a stretch to conclude that there are 767000 stupid readers . These are people who actually pay to read it. Angela Rayner is hardly even worth discussing . She considers it acceptable to call people scum which is an appalling reflection on her as an individual . Not exactly a very nice person or a desirable attribute to have Comedy Gold
My work requires me to read and be familiar with all major news outlets in the UK including The Mail so sadly I do have to read it. What this means is I have a broad exposure to wide ranging views from across the political spectrum.
The Mail is an insidious salacious rag that tries to hide behind a veneer of being a serious newspaper. It isn’t.
The Mail has been sued on multiple occasions and been found to have lied on numerous times and caused immeasurable damage to innocent people’s lives as a result.
And yeah, I do think the majority of people who buy that rag to be either stupid or have questionable morals themselves. ". Your comments tend to indicate that you have no intention of reading the Sunday Mail with an impartial approach . Do you hold all newspapers in such contempt? All newspapers get things wrong on occasions and may have to pay out damages. No system is foolproof. I think for now I will assume that the 757000 Sunday Mail readers are balanced rational individuals and that your opinion is that of a small minority. Describing a newspaper as a rag is hardly rational especially as it is one of the best selling Sunday Newspapers . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet I majored. Go figure. Are you an American? If so I take it all back. American English is very different to the language I speak. Shucks!
Half French - Half English.
Husband is Half American - Half English.
Though I have no idea why that would be part of this conversation, whatsoever.
Because you said you majored. Which is American.
So?
How is this helping the discussion of the OP and Misogyny?
As this thread is apparently about misogyny, and misogyny is defined as "hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women" how is to be applied to Rayner? Perhaps you could use your linguistic skills to define what a woman is for those of us who aren't "majors"?
read the article - decide that for yourself.
I don't read the Mail. Are you afraid to give me your definition?
Being female, I properly know what misogyny is. Being baited by some who clearly doesn't, really isn't going to work.
Ah, the old "I'm just a poor woman being bullied by a big nasty man" ploy. Are you incapable of defining what a woman is, or just afraid?
You appear to be unable to identify misogyny.
That is a problem that most misogynists have.
Taking it to an extreme, the Nazis didn't think that they were doing anything wrong...
A poor attempt at deflection old chap. The "nazis" reference is an old and well-worn internet trick to divert focus, nobody falls for that one anymore. I simply asked a question that should be easily answerable by someone who professes to be qualified in the English language. That they were incapable or unwilling to do so speaks volumes. Perhaps you'd like to take a crack if you're not afraid to do so. How do you personally define what a woman is?
The 'willing' is all with you. "I'm sure the poster I was responding to is imminently capable of answering my question, but thanks for your meaningless input. Your post above said "I'll leave you with that" - perhaps you should have done. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet I majored. Go figure. Are you an American? If so I take it all back. American English is very different to the language I speak. Shucks!
Half French - Half English.
Husband is Half American - Half English.
Though I have no idea why that would be part of this conversation, whatsoever.
Because you said you majored. Which is American.
So?
How is this helping the discussion of the OP and Misogyny?
As this thread is apparently about misogyny, and misogyny is defined as "hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women" how is to be applied to Rayner? Perhaps you could use your linguistic skills to define what a woman is for those of us who aren't "majors"?
read the article - decide that for yourself.
I don't read the Mail. Are you afraid to give me your definition?
Being female, I properly know what misogyny is. Being baited by some who clearly doesn't, really isn't going to work.
Ah, the old "I'm just a poor woman being bullied by a big nasty man" ploy. Are you incapable of defining what a woman is, or just afraid?
You appear to be unable to identify misogyny.
That is a problem that most misogynists have.
Taking it to an extreme, the Nazis didn't think that they were doing anything wrong...
A poor attempt at deflection old chap. The "nazis" reference is an old and well-worn internet trick to divert focus, nobody falls for that one anymore. I simply asked a question that should be easily answerable by someone who professes to be qualified in the English language. That they were incapable or unwilling to do so speaks volumes. Perhaps you'd like to take a crack if you're not afraid to do so. How do you personally define what a woman is?"It's not an "attempt at deflection" and I clearly stated the extreme nature of the simile as I have assessed only that level of example to be understood. You asking for a definition of a woman is not a deflection?
It hasn't been. Nothing more to be done. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet I majored. Go figure. Are you an American? If so I take it all back. American English is very different to the language I speak. Shucks!
Half French - Half English.
Husband is Half American - Half English.
Though I have no idea why that would be part of this conversation, whatsoever.
Because you said you majored. Which is American.
So?
How is this helping the discussion of the OP and Misogyny?
As this thread is apparently about misogyny, and misogyny is defined as "hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women" how is to be applied to Rayner? Perhaps you could use your linguistic skills to define what a woman is for those of us who aren't "majors"?
read the article - decide that for yourself.
I don't read the Mail. Are you afraid to give me your definition?
Being female, I properly know what misogyny is. Being baited by some who clearly doesn't, really isn't going to work.
Ah, the old "I'm just a poor woman being bullied by a big nasty man" ploy. Are you incapable of defining what a woman is, or just afraid?
You appear to be unable to identify misogyny.
That is a problem that most misogynists have.
Taking it to an extreme, the Nazis didn't think that they were doing anything wrong...
A poor attempt at deflection old chap. The "nazis" reference is an old and well-worn internet trick to divert focus, nobody falls for that one anymore. I simply asked a question that should be easily answerable by someone who professes to be qualified in the English language. That they were incapable or unwilling to do so speaks volumes. Perhaps you'd like to take a crack if you're not afraid to do so. How do you personally define what a woman is?
The 'willing' is all with you.
I'm sure the poster I was responding to is imminently capable of answering my question, but thanks for your meaningless input. Your post above said "I'll leave you with that" - perhaps you should have done. "Isn't it odd, that in your need to feel big, I don't feel small. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a Sunday news paper they have to fill it with something that's it end of. No it isn’t. They could fill it with REAL NEWS instead of salacious lies, gossip and bullshit. It is a hideous rag that too many people actually take seriously.. The Sunday Mail have a circulation of 767, 000 copies . Do you actually read the Sunday Mail or have you just formed your opinion based on heresay. ? I do not think that those whose choose to buy the Sunday Mail would regard it as a rag nor would those newsagents who sell it . It has many award winning journalists. Whilst everyone is entitled to an opinion your description of it as a rag is only held by a very small proportion of the population . It would be a bit of a stretch to conclude that there are 767000 stupid readers . These are people who actually pay to read it. Angela Rayner is hardly even worth discussing . She considers it acceptable to call people scum which is an appalling reflection on her as an individual . Not exactly a very nice person or a desirable attribute to have Comedy Gold
My work requires me to read and be familiar with all major news outlets in the UK including The Mail so sadly I do have to read it. What this means is I have a broad exposure to wide ranging views from across the political spectrum.
The Mail is an insidious salacious rag that tries to hide behind a veneer of being a serious newspaper. It isn’t.
The Mail has been sued on multiple occasions and been found to have lied on numerous times and caused immeasurable damage to innocent people’s lives as a result.
And yeah, I do think the majority of people who buy that rag to be either stupid or have questionable morals themselves. "Fucking hell. It’s just a newspaper. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet I majored. Go figure. Are you an American? If so I take it all back. American English is very different to the language I speak. Shucks!
Half French - Half English.
Husband is Half American - Half English.
Though I have no idea why that would be part of this conversation, whatsoever.
Because you said you majored. Which is American.
So?
How is this helping the discussion of the OP and Misogyny?
As this thread is apparently about misogyny, and misogyny is defined as "hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women" how is to be applied to Rayner? Perhaps you could use your linguistic skills to define what a woman is for those of us who aren't "majors"?
read the article - decide that for yourself.
I don't read the Mail. Are you afraid to give me your definition?
Being female, I properly know what misogyny is. Being baited by some who clearly doesn't, really isn't going to work.
Ah, the old "I'm just a poor woman being bullied by a big nasty man" ploy. Are you incapable of defining what a woman is, or just afraid?
You appear to be unable to identify misogyny.
That is a problem that most misogynists have.
Taking it to an extreme, the Nazis didn't think that they were doing anything wrong...
A poor attempt at deflection old chap. The "nazis" reference is an old and well-worn internet trick to divert focus, nobody falls for that one anymore. I simply asked a question that should be easily answerable by someone who professes to be qualified in the English language. That they were incapable or unwilling to do so speaks volumes. Perhaps you'd like to take a crack if you're not afraid to do so. How do you personally define what a woman is?
It's not an "attempt at deflection" and I clearly stated the extreme nature of the simile as I have assessed only that level of example to be understood.
You asking for a definition of a woman is not a deflection?
It hasn't been. Nothing more to be done."Define what a woman is. Simple question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet I majored. Go figure. Are you an American? If so I take it all back. American English is very different to the language I speak. Shucks!
Half French - Half English.
Husband is Half American - Half English.
Though I have no idea why that would be part of this conversation, whatsoever.
Because you said you majored. Which is American.
So?
How is this helping the discussion of the OP and Misogyny?
As this thread is apparently about misogyny, and misogyny is defined as "hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women" how is to be applied to Rayner? Perhaps you could use your linguistic skills to define what a woman is for those of us who aren't "majors"?
read the article - decide that for yourself.
I don't read the Mail. Are you afraid to give me your definition?
Being female, I properly know what misogyny is. Being baited by some who clearly doesn't, really isn't going to work.
Ah, the old "I'm just a poor woman being bullied by a big nasty man" ploy. Are you incapable of defining what a woman is, or just afraid?
You appear to be unable to identify misogyny.
That is a problem that most misogynists have.
Taking it to an extreme, the Nazis didn't think that they were doing anything wrong...
A poor attempt at deflection old chap. The "nazis" reference is an old and well-worn internet trick to divert focus, nobody falls for that one anymore. I simply asked a question that should be easily answerable by someone who professes to be qualified in the English language. That they were incapable or unwilling to do so speaks volumes. Perhaps you'd like to take a crack if you're not afraid to do so. How do you personally define what a woman is?
The 'willing' is all with you.
I'm sure the poster I was responding to is imminently capable of answering my question, but thanks for your meaningless input. Your post above said "I'll leave you with that" - perhaps you should have done.
Isn't it odd, that in your need to feel big, I don't feel small. "Define what a woman is. Simple question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet I majored. Go figure. Are you an American? If so I take it all back. American English is very different to the language I speak. Shucks!
Half French - Half English.
Husband is Half American - Half English.
Though I have no idea why that would be part of this conversation, whatsoever.
Because you said you majored. Which is American.
So?
How is this helping the discussion of the OP and Misogyny?
As this thread is apparently about misogyny, and misogyny is defined as "hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women" how is to be applied to Rayner? Perhaps you could use your linguistic skills to define what a woman is for those of us who aren't "majors"?
read the article - decide that for yourself.
I don't read the Mail. Are you afraid to give me your definition?
Being female, I properly know what misogyny is. Being baited by some who clearly doesn't, really isn't going to work.
Ah, the old "I'm just a poor woman being bullied by a big nasty man" ploy. Are you incapable of defining what a woman is, or just afraid?
You appear to be unable to identify misogyny.
That is a problem that most misogynists have.
Taking it to an extreme, the Nazis didn't think that they were doing anything wrong...
A poor attempt at deflection old chap. The "nazis" reference is an old and well-worn internet trick to divert focus, nobody falls for that one anymore. I simply asked a question that should be easily answerable by someone who professes to be qualified in the English language. That they were incapable or unwilling to do so speaks volumes. Perhaps you'd like to take a crack if you're not afraid to do so. How do you personally define what a woman is?
It's not an "attempt at deflection" and I clearly stated the extreme nature of the simile as I have assessed only that level of example to be understood.
You asking for a definition of a woman is not a deflection?
It hasn't been. Nothing more to be done.
Define what a woman is. Simple question. "Is Rayner a woman? Was she insulted in a purely sexist manner? That's all the definition necessary for this thread, isn't it? Anything else is deflection | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Define what a woman is. Simple question. " 'What a woman is' has absolutely nothing to do with Misogyny - why on earth do you think it does? Define misogyny for yourself and in the context of this OP and you will be much closer to the answer that you obviously seek. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet I majored. Go figure. Are you an American? If so I take it all back. American English is very different to the language I speak. Shucks!
On Fab - normally a man!
Half French - Half English.
Husband is Half American - Half English.
Though I have no idea why that would be part of this conversation, whatsoever.
Because you said you majored. Which is American.
So?
How is this helping the discussion of the OP and Misogyny?
As this thread is apparently about misogyny, and misogyny is defined as "hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women" how is to be applied to Rayner? Perhaps you could use your linguistic skills to define what a woman is for those of us who aren't "majors"?
read the article - decide that for yourself.
I don't read the Mail. Are you afraid to give me your definition?
Being female, I properly know what misogyny is. Being baited by some who clearly doesn't, really isn't going to work.
Ah, the old "I'm just a poor woman being bullied by a big nasty man" ploy. Are you incapable of defining what a woman is, or just afraid?
You appear to be unable to identify misogyny.
That is a problem that most misogynists have.
Taking it to an extreme, the Nazis didn't think that they were doing anything wrong...
A poor attempt at deflection old chap. The "nazis" reference is an old and well-worn internet trick to divert focus, nobody falls for that one anymore. I simply asked a question that should be easily answerable by someone who professes to be qualified in the English language. That they were incapable or unwilling to do so speaks volumes. Perhaps you'd like to take a crack if you're not afraid to do so. How do you personally define what a woman is?
It's not an "attempt at deflection" and I clearly stated the extreme nature of the simile as I have assessed only that level of example to be understood.
You asking for a definition of a woman is not a deflection?
It hasn't been. Nothing more to be done.
Define what a woman is. Simple question. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet I majored. Go figure. Are you an American? If so I take it all back. American English is very different to the language I speak. Shucks!
Half French - Half English.
Husband is Half American - Half English.
Though I have no idea why that would be part of this conversation, whatsoever.
Because you said you majored. Which is American.
So?
How is this helping the discussion of the OP and Misogyny?
As this thread is apparently about misogyny, and misogyny is defined as "hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women" how is to be applied to Rayner? Perhaps you could use your linguistic skills to define what a woman is for those of us who aren't "majors"?
read the article - decide that for yourself.
I don't read the Mail. Are you afraid to give me your definition?
Being female, I properly know what misogyny is. Being baited by some who clearly doesn't, really isn't going to work.
Ah, the old "I'm just a poor woman being bullied by a big nasty man" ploy. Are you incapable of defining what a woman is, or just afraid?
You appear to be unable to identify misogyny.
That is a problem that most misogynists have.
Taking it to an extreme, the Nazis didn't think that they were doing anything wrong...
A poor attempt at deflection old chap. The "nazis" reference is an old and well-worn internet trick to divert focus, nobody falls for that one anymore. I simply asked a question that should be easily answerable by someone who professes to be qualified in the English language. That they were incapable or unwilling to do so speaks volumes. Perhaps you'd like to take a crack if you're not afraid to do so. How do you personally define what a woman is?
It's not an "attempt at deflection" and I clearly stated the extreme nature of the simile as I have assessed only that level of example to be understood.
You asking for a definition of a woman is not a deflection?
It hasn't been. Nothing more to be done.
Define what a woman is. Simple question.
Is Rayner a woman?
Was she insulted in a purely sexist manner?
That's all the definition necessary for this thread, isn't it?
Anything else is deflection "Answering questions with questions - always great in a debate As for necessary definitions, is it you who decides how a thread runs? How does that work out for you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet I majored. Go figure. Are you an American? If so I take it all back. American English is very different to the language I speak. Shucks!
Half French - Half English.
Husband is Half American - Half English.
Though I have no idea why that would be part of this conversation, whatsoever.
Because you said you majored. Which is American.
So?
How is this helping the discussion of the OP and Misogyny?
As this thread is apparently about misogyny, and misogyny is defined as "hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women" how is to be applied to Rayner? Perhaps you could use your linguistic skills to define what a woman is for those of us who aren't "majors"?
read the article - decide that for yourself.
I don't read the Mail. Are you afraid to give me your definition?
Being female, I properly know what misogyny is. Being baited by some who clearly doesn't, really isn't going to work.
Ah, the old "I'm just a poor woman being bullied by a big nasty man" ploy. Are you incapable of defining what a woman is, or just afraid?
You appear to be unable to identify misogyny.
That is a problem that most misogynists have.
Taking it to an extreme, the Nazis didn't think that they were doing anything wrong...
A poor attempt at deflection old chap. The "nazis" reference is an old and well-worn internet trick to divert focus, nobody falls for that one anymore. I simply asked a question that should be easily answerable by someone who professes to be qualified in the English language. That they were incapable or unwilling to do so speaks volumes. Perhaps you'd like to take a crack if you're not afraid to do so. How do you personally define what a woman is?
It's not an "attempt at deflection" and I clearly stated the extreme nature of the simile as I have assessed only that level of example to be understood.
You asking for a definition of a woman is not a deflection?
It hasn't been. Nothing more to be done.
Define what a woman is. Simple question.
Is Rayner a woman?
Was she insulted in a purely sexist manner?
That's all the definition necessary for this thread, isn't it?
Anything else is deflection
Answering questions with questions - always great in a debate As for necessary definitions, is it you who decides how a thread runs? How does that work out for you? "You have been misogynistic and not, apparently, realised. You have claimed deflection, whilst deflecting. You are the one demanding definitions of words, whilst complaining about control of threads. Physician, heal thyself | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Define what a woman is. Simple question. 'What a woman is' has absolutely nothing to do with Misogyny - why on earth do you think it does? Define misogyny for yourself and in the context of this OP and you will be much closer to the answer that you obviously seek. " It's quite simple really. Misogyny is defined as "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women". If you cannot define what a woman is, then logically, you cannot define what societal impact misogyny has on a woman you can have no basic knowledge of the root causes, or their eradication. You twist and you turn, but you're still incapable or unwilling to define what a woman is and that helps nobody, especially women. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Left without speech - now for me that really is something. hahaha | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet I majored. Go figure. Are you an American? If so I take it all back. American English is very different to the language I speak. Shucks!
Half French - Half English.
Husband is Half American - Half English.
Though I have no idea why that would be part of this conversation, whatsoever.
Because you said you majored. Which is American.
So?
How is this helping the discussion of the OP and Misogyny?
As this thread is apparently about misogyny, and misogyny is defined as "hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women" how is to be applied to Rayner? Perhaps you could use your linguistic skills to define what a woman is for those of us who aren't "majors"?
read the article - decide that for yourself.
I don't read the Mail. Are you afraid to give me your definition?
Being female, I properly know what misogyny is. Being baited by some who clearly doesn't, really isn't going to work.
Ah, the old "I'm just a poor woman being bullied by a big nasty man" ploy. Are you incapable of defining what a woman is, or just afraid?
You appear to be unable to identify misogyny.
That is a problem that most misogynists have.
Taking it to an extreme, the Nazis didn't think that they were doing anything wrong...
A poor attempt at deflection old chap. The "nazis" reference is an old and well-worn internet trick to divert focus, nobody falls for that one anymore. I simply asked a question that should be easily answerable by someone who professes to be qualified in the English language. That they were incapable or unwilling to do so speaks volumes. Perhaps you'd like to take a crack if you're not afraid to do so. How do you personally define what a woman is?
It's not an "attempt at deflection" and I clearly stated the extreme nature of the simile as I have assessed only that level of example to be understood.
You asking for a definition of a woman is not a deflection?
It hasn't been. Nothing more to be done.
Define what a woman is. Simple question.
Is Rayner a woman?
Was she insulted in a purely sexist manner?
That's all the definition necessary for this thread, isn't it?
Anything else is deflection
Answering questions with questions - always great in a debate As for necessary definitions, is it you who decides how a thread runs? How does that work out for you?
You have been misogynistic and not, apparently, realised.
You have claimed deflection, whilst deflecting.
You are the one demanding definitions of words, whilst complaining about control of threads.
Physician, heal thyself "Still not willing to answer a simple question then? Ok, I'll put a tick in your "incapable of reasoned debate" box. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Left without speech - now for me that really is something. hahaha"I'm sure there are many who are grateful | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Define what a woman is. Simple question. 'What a woman is' has absolutely nothing to do with Misogyny - why on earth do you think it does? Define misogyny for yourself and in the context of this OP and you will be much closer to the answer that you obviously seek. It's quite simple really. Misogyny is defined as "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women". If you cannot define what a woman is, then logically, you cannot define what societal impact misogyny has on a woman you can have no basic knowledge of the root causes, or their eradication. You twist and you turn, but you're still incapable or unwilling to define what a woman is and that helps nobody, especially women. " As the thread is about Anjela Rayner, them in this context you just have to decide if she is a woman or not rather than anything more metaphysical. I think that she is. What do you think? The next point, in context, is if the comments made in the article demonstrated contempt and prejudice against her as a woman. I think that they do. What do you think? Your blah, blah is just blah, blah. The questions and answers are quite simple. Now, give it a go  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Left without speech - now for me that really is something. hahaha
I'm sure there are many who are grateful "A smart arse answer really isn't an answer, though, is it? You have the last word, whatever it is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What about the men that used to sit opposite Theresa May Did they ever get accused of sitting there with their legs open trying to distract her from her job . How about Margaret Thatcher who I wonder, tried to beguile her into blustering her way through an argument?"Maggie Thatcher got fresh with a Parrot once as I recall lol. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow how did a post about a stupid deflection story in the Mail on Sunday become an existential crisis about defining what a woman is? Bemused! "But only one person here is asking that to be fair. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a Sunday news paper they have to fill it with something that's it end of. No it isn’t. They could fill it with REAL NEWS instead of salacious lies, gossip and bullshit. It is a hideous rag that too many people actually take seriously.. The Sunday Mail have a circulation of 767, 000 copies . Do you actually read the Sunday Mail or have you just formed your opinion based on heresay. ? I do not think that those whose choose to buy the Sunday Mail would regard it as a rag nor would those newsagents who sell it . It has many award winning journalists. Whilst everyone is entitled to an opinion your description of it as a rag is only held by a very small proportion of the population . It would be a bit of a stretch to conclude that there are 767000 stupid readers . These are people who actually pay to read it. Angela Rayner is hardly even worth discussing . She considers it acceptable to call people scum which is an appalling reflection on her as an individual . Not exactly a very nice person or a desirable attribute to have Comedy Gold
My work requires me to read and be familiar with all major news outlets in the UK including The Mail so sadly I do have to read it. What this means is I have a broad exposure to wide ranging views from across the political spectrum.
The Mail is an insidious salacious rag that tries to hide behind a veneer of being a serious newspaper. It isn’t.
The Mail has been sued on multiple occasions and been found to have lied on numerous times and caused immeasurable damage to innocent people’s lives as a result.
And yeah, I do think the majority of people who buy that rag to be either stupid or have questionable morals themselves. . Your comments tend to indicate that you have no intention of reading the Sunday Mail with an impartial approach . Do you hold all newspapers in such contempt? All newspapers get things wrong on occasions and may have to pay out damages. No system is foolproof. I think for now I will assume that the 757000 Sunday Mail readers are balanced rational individuals and that your opinion is that of a small minority. Describing a newspaper as a rag is hardly rational especially as it is one of the best selling Sunday Newspapers . "Well they seem to have lost 10,000 readers between your last two posts | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a Sunday news paper they have to fill it with something that's it end of. No it isn’t. They could fill it with REAL NEWS instead of salacious lies, gossip and bullshit. It is a hideous rag that too many people actually take seriously.. The Sunday Mail have a circulation of 767, 000 copies . Do you actually read the Sunday Mail or have you just formed your opinion based on heresay. ? I do not think that those whose choose to buy the Sunday Mail would regard it as a rag nor would those newsagents who sell it . It has many award winning journalists. Whilst everyone is entitled to an opinion your description of it as a rag is only held by a very small proportion of the population . It would be a bit of a stretch to conclude that there are 767000 stupid readers . These are people who actually pay to read it. Angela Rayner is hardly even worth discussing . She considers it acceptable to call people scum which is an appalling reflection on her as an individual . Not exactly a very nice person or a desirable attribute to have Comedy Gold
My work requires me to read and be familiar with all major news outlets in the UK including The Mail so sadly I do have to read it. What this means is I have a broad exposure to wide ranging views from across the political spectrum.
The Mail is an insidious salacious rag that tries to hide behind a veneer of being a serious newspaper. It isn’t.
The Mail has been sued on multiple occasions and been found to have lied on numerous times and caused immeasurable damage to innocent people’s lives as a result.
And yeah, I do think the majority of people who buy that rag to be either stupid or have questionable morals themselves.
Fucking hell. It’s just a newspaper. "You just demonstrated part of the problem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a Sunday news paper they have to fill it with something that's it end of. No it isn’t. They could fill it with REAL NEWS instead of salacious lies, gossip and bullshit. It is a hideous rag that too many people actually take seriously.. The Sunday Mail have a circulation of 767, 000 copies . Do you actually read the Sunday Mail or have you just formed your opinion based on heresay. ? I do not think that those whose choose to buy the Sunday Mail would regard it as a rag nor would those newsagents who sell it . It has many award winning journalists. Whilst everyone is entitled to an opinion your description of it as a rag is only held by a very small proportion of the population . It would be a bit of a stretch to conclude that there are 767000 stupid readers . These are people who actually pay to read it. Angela Rayner is hardly even worth discussing . She considers it acceptable to call people scum which is an appalling reflection on her as an individual . Not exactly a very nice person or a desirable attribute to have Comedy Gold
My work requires me to read and be familiar with all major news outlets in the UK including The Mail so sadly I do have to read it. What this means is I have a broad exposure to wide ranging views from across the political spectrum.
The Mail is an insidious salacious rag that tries to hide behind a veneer of being a serious newspaper. It isn’t.
The Mail has been sued on multiple occasions and been found to have lied on numerous times and caused immeasurable damage to innocent people’s lives as a result.
And yeah, I do think the majority of people who buy that rag to be either stupid or have questionable morals themselves. . Your comments tend to indicate that you have no intention of reading the Sunday Mail with an impartial approach . Do you hold all newspapers in such contempt? All newspapers get things wrong on occasions and may have to pay out damages. No system is foolproof. I think for now I will assume that the 757000 Sunday Mail readers are balanced rational individuals and that your opinion is that of a small minority. Describing a newspaper as a rag is hardly rational especially as it is one of the best selling Sunday Newspapers .
Well they seem to have lost 10,000 readers between your last two posts "If only | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Define what a woman is. Simple question. 'What a woman is' has absolutely nothing to do with Misogyny - why on earth do you think it does? Define misogyny for yourself and in the context of this OP and you will be much closer to the answer that you obviously seek. It's quite simple really. Misogyny is defined as "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women". If you cannot define what a woman is, then logically, you cannot define what societal impact misogyny has on a woman you can have no basic knowledge of the root causes, or their eradication. You twist and you turn, but you're still incapable or unwilling to define what a woman is and that helps nobody, especially women. " So are you basically saying that for the purpose of this debate you have insufficient life experience to define what a women is? Whilst it may be obvious to most, it maybe unfair of us to assume that you’re familiar enough with the female of the species to draw your own conclusion for the purpose of the OP. Well, ignore the precise definition for a moment. Just work on the basis that approx. half of the global population falls within the definition (which can be broad dependant on point if view - but we’re not going there despite attempts to derail this thread in that direction). So misogyny is an attitude or if you apply sole clever grammar an act of displaying hatred towards half the global population. Now is that in your book a good or a bad thing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tories accuse Angela Rayner of Basic Instinct ploy to distract Boris:...Newspaper article Im not a voter in The UK but is that the level that certain newspapers think is acceptable and accurate nowadays in political discussions " I am sure she does it in the best possible taste.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tories accuse Angela Rayner of Basic Instinct ploy to distract Boris:...Newspaper article Im not a voter in The UK but is that the level that certain newspapers think is acceptable and accurate nowadays in political discussions I am sure she does it in the best possible taste. "Is that a Kenny reference? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Define what a woman is. Simple question. 'What a woman is' has absolutely nothing to do with Misogyny - why on earth do you think it does? Define misogyny for yourself and in the context of this OP and you will be much closer to the answer that you obviously seek. It's quite simple really. Misogyny is defined as "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women". If you cannot define what a woman is, then logically, you cannot define what societal impact misogyny has on a woman you can have no basic knowledge of the root causes, or their eradication. You twist and you turn, but you're still incapable or unwilling to define what a woman is and that helps nobody, especially women. So are you basically saying that for the purpose of this debate you have insufficient life experience to define what a women is? Whilst it may be obvious to most, it maybe unfair of us to assume that you’re familiar enough with the female of the species to draw your own conclusion for the purpose of the OP. Well, ignore the precise definition for a moment. Just work on the basis that approx. half of the global population falls within the definition (which can be broad dependant on point if view - but we’re not going there despite attempts to derail this thread in that direction). So misogyny is an attitude or if you apply sole clever grammar an act of displaying hatred towards half the global population. Now is that in your book a good or a bad thing? " Okay, I think I’ve successfully translated this post. Your first paragraph is utter nonsense, I have said no such thing so I will ignore it. Your second sentence says essentially the same thing, but you have expanded it enough to make it into a very clumsily worded passive aggressive insult. I will ignore this too, but I won’t report you. Then this part:- “Well, ignore the precise definition for a moment.” Nobody had the courage to give the precise definition, unsurprisingly. So let’s get to the only part that makes any sense:- “misogyny is an attitude or if you apply sole clever grammar an act of displaying hatred towards half the global population. Now is that in your book a good or a bad thing?” Well, of course it’s a “bad thing”. But it’s a “bad thing” in all its forms and usages. Take a look at some of the posts above. There are misogynist comments about Nadine Dorries (as well as questioning her mental state), Theresa May, even Margaret Thatcher. There are also misandrist comments about Rees-Mogg. Are these acceptable just because they’re Tories? It seems so, because nobody has called them out. Admit it, the OP is not about misogyny, it’s about sticking one to Bojo. I don’t disagree with sticking the boot in to Bojo, he deserves it, but if it’s done in this way, it just makes most of the above posters hypocrites and belittles the plight of those who suffer from either misogyny or misandry. Neither are acceptable, ever. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Define what a woman is. Simple question. 'What a woman is' has absolutely nothing to do with Misogyny - why on earth do you think it does? Define misogyny for yourself and in the context of this OP and you will be much closer to the answer that you obviously seek. It's quite simple really. Misogyny is defined as "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women". If you cannot define what a woman is, then logically, you cannot define what societal impact misogyny has on a woman you can have no basic knowledge of the root causes, or their eradication. You twist and you turn, but you're still incapable or unwilling to define what a woman is and that helps nobody, especially women. So are you basically saying that for the purpose of this debate you have insufficient life experience to define what a women is? Whilst it may be obvious to most, it maybe unfair of us to assume that you’re familiar enough with the female of the species to draw your own conclusion for the purpose of the OP. Well, ignore the precise definition for a moment. Just work on the basis that approx. half of the global population falls within the definition (which can be broad dependant on point if view - but we’re not going there despite attempts to derail this thread in that direction). So misogyny is an attitude or if you apply sole clever grammar an act of displaying hatred towards half the global population. Now is that in your book a good or a bad thing? Okay, I think I’ve successfully translated this post. Your first paragraph is utter nonsense, I have said no such thing so I will ignore it. Your second sentence says essentially the same thing, but you have expanded it enough to make it into a very clumsily worded passive aggressive insult. I will ignore this too, but I won’t report you. Then this part:- “Well, ignore the precise definition for a moment.” Nobody had the courage to give the precise definition, unsurprisingly. So let’s get to the only part that makes any sense:- “misogyny is an attitude or if you apply sole clever grammar an act of displaying hatred towards half the global population. Now is that in your book a good or a bad thing?” Well, of course it’s a “bad thing”. But it’s a “bad thing” in all its forms and usages. Take a look at some of the posts above. There are misogynist comments about Nadine Dorries (as well as questioning her mental state), Theresa May, even Margaret Thatcher. There are also misandrist comments about Rees-Mogg. Are these acceptable just because they’re Tories? It seems so, because nobody has called them out. Admit it, the OP is not about misogyny, it’s about sticking one to Bojo. I don’t disagree with sticking the boot in to Bojo, he deserves it, but if it’s done in this way, it just makes most of the above posters hypocrites and belittles the plight of those who suffer from either misogyny or misandry. Neither are acceptable, ever." I see you’ve finally made your point then. Bravo. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Define what a woman is. Simple question. 'What a woman is' has absolutely nothing to do with Misogyny - why on earth do you think it does? Define misogyny for yourself and in the context of this OP and you will be much closer to the answer that you obviously seek. It's quite simple really. Misogyny is defined as "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women". If you cannot define what a woman is, then logically, you cannot define what societal impact misogyny has on a woman you can have no basic knowledge of the root causes, or their eradication. You twist and you turn, but you're still incapable or unwilling to define what a woman is and that helps nobody, especially women. So are you basically saying that for the purpose of this debate you have insufficient life experience to define what a women is? Whilst it may be obvious to most, it maybe unfair of us to assume that you’re familiar enough with the female of the species to draw your own conclusion for the purpose of the OP. Well, ignore the precise definition for a moment. Just work on the basis that approx. half of the global population falls within the definition (which can be broad dependant on point if view - but we’re not going there despite attempts to derail this thread in that direction). So misogyny is an attitude or if you apply sole clever grammar an act of displaying hatred towards half the global population. Now is that in your book a good or a bad thing? Okay, I think I’ve successfully translated this post. Your first paragraph is utter nonsense, I have said no such thing so I will ignore it. Your second sentence says essentially the same thing, but you have expanded it enough to make it into a very clumsily worded passive aggressive insult. I will ignore this too, but I won’t report you. Then this part:- “Well, ignore the precise definition for a moment.” Nobody had the courage to give the precise definition, unsurprisingly. So let’s get to the only part that makes any sense:- “misogyny is an attitude or if you apply sole clever grammar an act of displaying hatred towards half the global population. Now is that in your book a good or a bad thing?” Well, of course it’s a “bad thing”. But it’s a “bad thing” in all its forms and usages. Take a look at some of the posts above. There are misogynist comments about Nadine Dorries (as well as questioning her mental state), Theresa May, even Margaret Thatcher. There are also misandrist comments about Rees-Mogg. Are these acceptable just because they’re Tories? It seems so, because nobody has called them out. Admit it, the OP is not about misogyny, it’s about sticking one to Bojo. I don’t disagree with sticking the boot in to Bojo, he deserves it, but if it’s done in this way, it just makes most of the above posters hypocrites and belittles the plight of those who suffer from either misogyny or misandry. Neither are acceptable, ever." So, despite all of your blustering; Angela Rayner is a woman and the article in The Mail about her was misogynistic and unacceptable. Then, we're all agreed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'PM sent Angela Rayner personal message over Mail on Sunday article Sky's political correspondent Tamara Cohen has been told Boris Johnson sent Angela Rayner a "short but heartfelt" Whatsapp message yesterday after she hit out at "sexist" and "misogynistic" reporting about her in the Mail on Sunday. It is understood he posted a tweet in support of Labour's deputy leader shortly afterwards. An ally of the prime minister told Tamara that Boris Johnson is very clear in his view on "these kinds of attitudes" - having seen his wife Carrie branded "Princess Nut Nut" in comments leaked to the media in 2020.' SkyNews." So lets give Boris the benefit of the doubt. He seems to have been supportive so far. If he follows through and launches an investigation into the source and starts to tackle the root cause , then we’ll know he’s indeed sincere. If nothing practical and real happens beyond mere words of sympathy then we can conclude he’s really ok with what happened. Time will tell. People will be watching. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'PM sent Angela Rayner personal message over Mail on Sunday article Sky's political correspondent Tamara Cohen has been told Boris Johnson sent Angela Rayner a "short but heartfelt" Whatsapp message yesterday after she hit out at "sexist" and "misogynistic" reporting about her in the Mail on Sunday. It is understood he posted a tweet in support of Labour's deputy leader shortly afterwards. An ally of the prime minister told Tamara that Boris Johnson is very clear in his view on "these kinds of attitudes" - having seen his wife Carrie branded "Princess Nut Nut" in comments leaked to the media in 2020.' SkyNews." He had to though right? Because regardless of misogyny, it isn’t a good look that the PM couldn’t maintain attention on important matters of state if a female of the species uncrossed her legs, I mean God forbid a woman actually, you know, moves! Actually think the knives are out for Johnson within the Tory party and this was in fact an attempt to make him look bad. Angela Rayner was just collateral damage. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Define what a woman is. Simple question. 'What a woman is' has absolutely nothing to do with Misogyny - why on earth do you think it does? Define misogyny for yourself and in the context of this OP and you will be much closer to the answer that you obviously seek. It's quite simple really. Misogyny is defined as "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women". If you cannot define what a woman is, then logically, you cannot define what societal impact misogyny has on a woman you can have no basic knowledge of the root causes, or their eradication. You twist and you turn, but you're still incapable or unwilling to define what a woman is and that helps nobody, especially women. So are you basically saying that for the purpose of this debate you have insufficient life experience to define what a women is? Whilst it may be obvious to most, it maybe unfair of us to assume that you’re familiar enough with the female of the species to draw your own conclusion for the purpose of the OP. Well, ignore the precise definition for a moment. Just work on the basis that approx. half of the global population falls within the definition (which can be broad dependant on point if view - but we’re not going there despite attempts to derail this thread in that direction). So misogyny is an attitude or if you apply sole clever grammar an act of displaying hatred towards half the global population. Now is that in your book a good or a bad thing? Okay, I think I’ve successfully translated this post. Your first paragraph is utter nonsense, I have said no such thing so I will ignore it. Your second sentence says essentially the same thing, but you have expanded it enough to make it into a very clumsily worded passive aggressive insult. I will ignore this too, but I won’t report you. Then this part:- “Well, ignore the precise definition for a moment.” Nobody had the courage to give the precise definition, unsurprisingly. So let’s get to the only part that makes any sense:- “misogyny is an attitude or if you apply sole clever grammar an act of displaying hatred towards half the global population. Now is that in your book a good or a bad thing?” Well, of course it’s a “bad thing”. But it’s a “bad thing” in all its forms and usages. Take a look at some of the posts above. There are misogynist comments about Nadine Dorries (as well as questioning her mental state), Theresa May, even Margaret Thatcher. There are also misandrist comments about Rees-Mogg. Are these acceptable just because they’re Tories? It seems so, because nobody has called them out. Admit it, the OP is not about misogyny, it’s about sticking one to Bojo. I don’t disagree with sticking the boot in to Bojo, he deserves it, but if it’s done in this way, it just makes most of the above posters hypocrites and belittles the plight of those who suffer from either misogyny or misandry. Neither are acceptable, ever." It took ages for anyone to mention Boris outside of the idea he was easily distracted by legs (which is what the article is about) But it sounds like we agree that the subject of article was not acceptable. I would hope you'd agree that it is not acceptable for an MP to make such comments to the Mail, particularly if they aren't even prepared to put their name to it. And I'd hope you'd be supportive of a PM taking steps to this out of his party. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If he follows through and launches an investigation into the source ..." What source? This was The Sunday Mail, the story was entirely made up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
