Just woke, went into OoL first and saw this:

I am sure, among the millions of people who voted for Brexit, there was a variety of reasons to go.…

Variety of reasons, yes, variety of opinions. Look at this little chart:


To conclude from that that I’m moderate centre-right would be a mistake – not on all things. I think jihadis should be deported right now, this involves force, this surely puts me to the authoritarian edge. I also think cannabis should be like alcohol – regulated for minors but freely available for adults. That puts me on the druggy libertarian edge.

Truth is that were we to scatter our answers to the questionnaire across that board, they would spray all over the place and what comes out as a red dot is an averaging. I’d like to see the chart with the original answers scattered in light grey dots as well.

Which is why I have three views as a result of that:

1. The notion of political parties in parliament and congress is stupid, let alone having just two parties, a red and a blue. The shades of opinion are so varied on so many issues it’s a wonder they can agree on anything.

And they don’t. This is why they have coercive “whips”, to make an MP vote against his/her conscience/belief. I am opposed to political parties.

Were you to scatter people’s opinions [not MPs as they’re not freely chosen] over that chart, they’d intermingle – my position on cruelty to animals might be way to the traditional left of most readers here on most other issues, which do see us align. But I average out where I am on the chart.

And were you to allow direct democracy, where registered voters who have passed a factual test on the nation [and it can be written and thrashed out] can push a button on their device at home, put in all the validation codes and encryption and vote on any matter, then that would direct the executive to do as the people say.

2. I’ve been told many times that the traditional left-right labelling is invalid, that it is now Statist-freedom or Neocon globalist-nationalist or whatever. The critical issue in this is not the scattering of beliefs, it is the labelling.

Let’s say that that chart is a sandbox, with all our beliefs scattered – then along comes someone and places a screen over that box, in coloured cellophane – a lovely light pink, blue, purple and green quadrant screen and now we are divided and labelled – you see I’m in the authoritarian right quadrant, according to them.

But you’d also realize, if you’d see the scattering, that I’d zero into the centre on average. So like stats, this chart is highly misleading – my views are far more libertarian than that.

3. Having written the above on the scattering of views, not all questions are multi-coloured, most questions today are black and white, on-off, go or stay, theist or atheist, bomb or stay out of it. This last one is what is splitting the Deplorables right now.

Plus if you took most people’s views on most things, they do tend to a grouping, in a way that a rifle shooter’s grouping of shots fall on the target in a rough pattern. And if a whole group of shooters tended to centre their shots, say, lower right of the target, then they could be loosely grouped as Lower Righters.

There is a Metro lady named Parveen on my Twitter timeline and she seems a London based labour supporter, but I might be quite wrong about that:

How many of those would you agree/disagree with? Would it surprise regular readers that I half-agree with two of those?

And a second question – how can you be sure that her views on everything are fairly represented – after all, I went in and selected six, did I not?

Drawing this thing to a close

1. Beliefs are scattered and ungroupable overall
2. There are groupings of beliefs which allow you to group
3. Many issues today are black and white, do or don’t
4. Two variables not mentioned above – fanatically coercive and moderate non-coercive.

People can be moderate on many things and fanatical on one. For example, I have a moderate belief in the Trinity, it seems fair enough to me but I’m being attacked by fanatical atheists using intemperate language, not unlike the way the Christians are being dealt with in the middle-east right now.

On the other hand, I think jihadis should be deported immediately for the demonstrable harm and/or threat they represent to our society. Who’s the fanatic? Who’s the moderate?

10 comments for “Belief

  1. mona
    April 14, 2017 at 11:45 am

    Parveen Agnihotti do you do Pin-ups? if you do I want to buy some.

  2. Errol
    April 14, 2017 at 12:23 pm

    It’s not possible to agree with any of her statements. They’re all nonsense opinions and, as her opinions they are all utterly invalid – except to her.

    Consider the ‘fight hate with hate nonsense. The EDL don’t ‘hate’ anyone. In her eyes, they are the enemy, so she hates them and prescribes her hatred on to the EDL. It is her only way to think of others different to her. She cannot consider another person’s views so she rubbishes them to protect herself through projection.

    Benefit cuts are not taking us back to ‘Dickensian’ times. We are richer than ever. The conceit that those considered poor are so not because they have no clothes, but because they haven’t been on holiday four times a year is ludicrous but to her, she’s swallowed her attitude and is applying it out of sheer prejudice.

    Then we have the truly absurd ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people’… and then she whiffles on about banning guns while previously presented the problem is people, yet doesn’t set about banning people and contradicting herself. The Left, being hypocrites do this a lot.

    Grammars have nothing to do with poverty. No one in the UK is poor. Some have a lot more than others but true want no longer exists. She ignores the intent and purpose of grammars: to allow the able intelligent to succeed – regardless of background. The Left *hate* this idea with a passion. To them, everone must get the same. That (to them) is fair. It makes no account and has no interest in what people want or need because it is not the result that matters, only the centralisation of power to an elite.

    As it is, the real poverty of children’s attainment is capable parents. Intelligent parents who give a stuff about their children will produce capable children, regardless of income. Again, this is antithetical to the Left’s perspective because the state cannot control the outcome.

    The only one I agree with is that all religions are equal. They’re all invented fantasies. Some are just further along being eradicated by an intelligent, rational society. Unfortunately our reason is being undermined by a malignant, politically motivated bloc practising a stone age barbarism antithetical to our society.

    • Henry Kaye
      April 15, 2017 at 10:52 am

      You’ve been reading my mail!

  3. Graham Wood
    April 14, 2017 at 1:42 pm

    “All religions are equal”. What maudlin nonsense! Equal to what?
    Equal to each other? Equal in value? Equal in their differing and mutually exclusive claims?
    Clearly there is more fantasy in that weird and vacuous statement than I would have thought possible for a “rational and intelligent member of society.
    God has given you a mind and rationality, but it is your responsibility to think.

    • April 14, 2017 at 5:26 pm

      Thanks Graham – saved me a job.

  4. Voice of Reason
    April 14, 2017 at 2:36 pm

    On guns:

    I live in the US, and have for almost 40 years.

    I am in the country, where there is the regular sound of gunfire, target shooting and hunting.

    I previously lived in the inner city, where there was also regular gunfire, but of a more personal nature.

    There is no way to eliminate guns from the culture here, and trying to do so would start a war. However, something which worries the gun enthusiasts here is that African-Americans and Hispanics are now stocking up. In some Southern states, the high rate of incarceration (often on bogus charges) meant that those populations couldn’t legally own guns after getting out, which made the old school racists feel a little more secure.

    On direct democracy:

    This was explored in John Brunner’s “Shockwave Rider”, quite worth reading. He did not note in the book how fickle the public is, and how short their collective attention span is. We would lurch all over the place. That, in theory, is why we have representative democracy.

    • April 14, 2017 at 5:26 pm

      Cheers, shall look out for it.

  5. Hereward Unbowed.
    April 15, 2017 at 12:46 am

    It’s not easy to utter unpopular truths, what is lacking in UK society is individual responsibility and no one but no one ever owns up, if there is no personal accountability, we live in and are living a lie.

    I have yet to read of a superior set of moral precepts based in Christianity, as I say so often you don’t have to believe to adhere to a morality based in truth and integrity.

    And yet, science, Mathematics is the way forward, therefore we must, as far as it is reasonable to set spirituality apart from the temporal and that bridge is spanned by logic, philosophizing and didactic, to wit, ‘to err is human, to forgive divine’.

    As if life’s struggle and spiral winding down to the end of its coil – ain’t hard enough, then, imposed on us by our ‘leaders’ introduced but, never, ever wanted nor solicited. Islam, is the antithesis of logic, Mathematics and thus everything we would know and could ever love.

    Do they hate us so much, suffice to conclude that, yes they do though hate is a terrible corrosive canker and in the final analysis, how do we able to turn the other cheek, and that is the biggest question.

    • April 15, 2017 at 6:57 am

      Quite agree about the maths and science. Advances are advancement for humanity if not skewed, e.g. by Big Pharma and you don’t bury your head in the sand and stay in the year 660.

      If you combine a personal belief system, i.e. ethics, with tech savvy, then the society flourishes as ours did in relative terms. But for one aspect to say the other aspects are not needed is for the whole to break down.

      • Hereward Unbowed.
        April 15, 2017 at 8:03 am

        As Mark 12:17, had it and I think, it was always a very, indeed an infinitely keen observation, why would it not, when one considers its source.

        “And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marveled at him.”

Comments are closed.