web analytics

just checking!

By ATWadmin On June 14th, 2007

Just clicked on the poll which is set on the upper left of the blogsite, and found to my astonishment that 31% of voters have indicated a preference to allow terrorists to enter Government!

What exactly should we take from this result, ongoing though it is? Are a third of the readers of this blog amenable to allowing people who espouse the bullet rather than the ballot to govern them in any degree whatsoever? Does this ‘third’ represent a true proportion of ATW readers, or just the ones who are just curious to see what others think who read and visit this site regularly? As we see the pictures of the laughing First Minister alongside his smiling Deputy, are we supposed to just accept this squalid catastrophe, or should we support anyone who actually stands up and states that he won’t rule alongside a bunch of thugs, chancers and vagabonds, and that’s just the DUP side of Government?

We see the results of the ministrations of Mandelson, of Blair and of Hain, of the weasel politics which beckoned a once-honourable group of people to sit alongside an unrepentant bunch of killers, and solely, I believe, for the promise of hands on the tillers of power, the die was cast and they now sit around the desks and tables of Stormont in a ghastly version of a chinese puzzle.

I am often reminded that this Assembly is the result of a democratic process, and that we, the protestors that is, should pack our tents and trundle off into the darkness; but a darkness is shrouded around that same place wherein sits the Assembly, and not much good will emerge until the stables are cleansed from the appeasers and the fellow-travellers of terrorists!

 

 

41 Responses to “just checking!”

  1. Mike,

    I note that each time a post has appeared which generated debate on "Irish issues" – the "Yes" numbers ramped up. This poll is also visible outside of ATW and thus does NOT solely reflect ATW readers view, but that said, I’m not surprised that around a third of people are wilfully morally blind. It’s the age we live in!

  2. "found to my astonishment that 31% of voters have indicated a preference to allow terrorists to enter Government!"

    The question asked was is it ever right, not if it is preferred.

  3. David,

    You know my views by now. If this is the only way to get an assembly up and running and have representation for both sections of the community, then I swallow hard and say OK.

    It seems to be working too. The sky hasn’t fallen in yet — though I notice that Jehovah sent a deluge or two during the past days.

  4. Exactly right – Frank. It’s that thing you can’t recognise – a moral absolute.

  5. Dawkins,

    When the sewers overflowed and excrement flowed. I thought it very apt for our ever so brave new world.

  6. The question was stupidly loaded in the first place. It is worthy target of ridicule.

    >>When the sewers overflowed and excremeny flowed.<<

    Harking back to the good old days of the UWC strike again, David?

  7. The days when the IRA SLAUGHTERED at will Noel?

    It was only a stupid question to moral relativists.

  8. The question is obviously loaded – of the "when did you stop beating your wife variety". A question phrased "Is it ever right to cling to six counties of a former colony because a nation was able to use gerrymandering to achieve a pro-union demographic?" would obviously invoke complaints as well.

    A more forthright poll would better serve the issues.

  9. The poll is loaded? All polls are loaded. It asks a straightforward moral question – is it EVER right to put terrorists into Government, yes or no? What’s so hard to think about it? Unless, of course, one struggles to understand what a terrorist is…or what appeasment is. Plus, no one is actually forced to take the poll..

  10. David,

    "Exactly right – Frank. It’s that thing you can’t recognise – a moral absolute."

    Now you’re confusing situational ethics and relativism. Someone could be a moral absolutist and still think that whether something was right or wrong depended on the situation. Similarly one could be a relativist and think that something (e.g. slavery) was never right.

    "It was only a stupid question to moral relativists. "

    You’re batting 0 for 2 now – I am probably the only relativist here and I didn’t think the question was stupid.

  11. Frank,

    The second comment was NOT aimed at you! As for my assertion of this poll being one focused on very clear moral absolutionism, do you agree with me? Whether this makes it "stupid" is a separate issue, if you know what I mean?

  12. SO MORAL REELATIVISM IS ONLY APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN SITUATIONS EVEN FOR A PROFESSING RELATIVIST, I WONDER IS IT THE NATURE OF THE SITUATION OR THE VALUE PLACED ON THE PEOPLES INVOLVED THAT DETERMINES WHEATHER THEY CAN BE SUBJECT TO ONE OR THE OTHER DELIBERATION,

    balls, sorry gone caps crazy today…………

    and as aquestion to all who voted ‘no’
    If it is never righjt to put terrorists in goveremtn, what does this say about the formation of the state of Israel, with particular regard to incidents like the King David Bombing ?

  13. Juan,

    Well you see, it’s real all quite relative….:-)

    A question for you, – "have terrorists of the modern variety, ever lost out, in the long term?"

  14. >>It asks a straightforward moral question – <<

    Nonsense. It is presented directly below a picture of SinnFein members and is obviously meant to suggest that these are terrorists who have been "put" into government, as – as Mike’s post and all subseqeunt comments show.

    Many people, however (definitely a majority in the sane world), would not consider these people terrorists. Ex-terrorists maybe, terrorist-supporters probably, but not terrorists.

    So, a person who thinks power-sharing in NI is the best option and who also believes that some members of a party which formerly supported an organisation that committed terrorist acts should, if elected by the people, be part of that arrangement is through this question in favour of "putting terrorists in government".

    This is why the question can be called loaded.

    Because its mechanism is so cheap and transparent is why it can be called stupidly loaded.

  15. to add to my question i would ask if this little bit of terrorist rhetoric rings a bell………

    "the Irgun was asked to speed up the plans for the King David Hotel bombing;[25] which was where the documents were located, the base for the British Secretariat, the military command, and a branch of the Criminal Investigation Division (police). On July 22 the Irgun bombed the King David Hotel. The Irgun later said that…………… "A Warning Sent Out Ahead Of Time Was Never Taken Seriously""

    So is it NEVER right to award terrorism or is it only the wrong kind of terrorist ?

  16. David: If it is straightforward why the need to put Gerry’s Kids and himself in the photo above it. Surely in that context the poll is not straightfoward, but partisan. I don’t mind partisan polls, the surely have their place in the political debate, but I don’t think we should pretend that it isn’t partisan.

  17. Well argued, Noel.

  18. it begs the ultimate question on this subject.

    "what is a terrorist?"

    violence characterises many changes in many nations system of governance. test your absolutism against that thesis.

  19. David,

    "As for my assertion of this poll being one focused on very clear moral absolutionism, do you agree with me? "

    It tries but backfires because many people (at least 1/3 according to your poll) can envisage situations where it is not wrong. This suggests the answer to your question is neither objective nor absolute.

    And then there is the old chestnut of how do you define ‘terrorist’?

    FWIW I answered ‘yes’ but not because of any view about NI but only because I can envisage circumstances where it is right, or at least not wrong.

    By the way, your poll also gives the lie to all those ‘radical Muslim’ polls. Seems like somebody could put together a similar poll regarding Christians in NI. Who’d have thunk it?

  20. FWIW I answered ‘yes’ but not because of any view about NI but only because I can envisage circumstances where it is right, or at least not wrong.

    ditto for me.

  21. Idem ditto for me.

    Does that mean I’m a relativist? Can’t wait to tell my mum.

  22. The poll vote has remained pretty steady for the last few days, at 2 to 1 against. That’s a comfortable majority, and I’ll bet that ATW’s detractors are furiously trying to vote from as many different IPs as possible, so I’m quite pleased with what it says.
    The only nark is, that particular poll doesn’t say how many votes there have been (although it’s possible to work it out at times, depending on the percentages shown).

  23. Does that mean I’m a relativist?

    NO!

  24. Noel,

    Sorry but you’re wrong. It shows IRA leaders and you know it.The IRA is, alas for some I know, a rotten bunch of murderers. So I feel it is a PERFECT example of terrorists who are in government and it seems that by a majority of 2:1 ATW readers and others rather agree that the BEST place for terrorists is NOT in government!

  25. That’s a comfortable majority, and I’ll bet that ATW’s detractors are furiously trying to vote from as many different IPs as possible

    excellent now its going to descend into a statistics war based on a binary data set. can i make wild assumptions too?

    have you taken into consideration the rabbit vote?

    ofcourse tom also ignores that the door swings both ways on his accusation and therefore considering ATWs ratio of right-world people:normal people id say a 2:1 is pretty good.

  26. Daytripper,

    LOL. Thanks for the link. I sent one of much inferior quality to a born-again friend. It read "… everyone else thinks you’re a c**t."

    David,

    "It shows IRA leaders and you know it."

    Never saw Caitriona Ruane in a military beret. Have you a pic for us? I thought they were de rigueur for top members of the assembly.

  27. Frank

    "It tries but backfires because many people (at least 1/3 according to your poll) can envisage situations where it is not wrong. This suggests the answer to your question is neither objective nor absolute."

    Surely that is exactly what the question is about and the fact that x % answered as they did is what the question sought to establish.

  28. >>It shows IRA leaders and you know it<<

    No. Some of those in your picture were never even in the IRA, some were but are no longer. It’s therefore all a mess.

    Admit it:this "poll" is merely your usual anti-Agreement rhetoric by other means.

  29. Which ones, Noel? Got confirmed details? Admit this is your usual Provo-apologising.

  30. Aileen,

    "Surely that is exactly what the question is about and the fact that x % answered as they did is what the question sought to establish."

    But the breakdown of answers suggests that there isn’t a right answer (it’s not objective, it’s subjective/relative), or it depends (it’s not absolute, it’s situational/relative), or it’s unknown and it’s open to debate (it is objective/absolute but nobody knows). I don’t think that’s what David meant to establish.

    After all if the topic were global warming and even one senile scientist can be found to disagree with the consensus this is taken as irrefutable proof that either side may be right.

  31. Frank

    You are doing a lot of extrapolation there.

    Any breakdown of answers would be no indication at all that there is or is not a right (factual) or right (moral) answer. The question just quauges opinion (or it would if you sorted out the questions about the sampling in terms of who answers.

    I’m not sure what you think that David was trying to establish as it could only have established what % of people answering took whatever view, not the inherent merits of the options.

    Or or you making another point that I’m not grasping?

  32. Noel: "Some of those in your picture were never even in the IRA"

    David: "Which ones, Noel? Got confirmed details?"

    LOL. "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the IRA?"

  33. Aileen,

    "Any breakdown of answers would be no indication at all that there is or is not a right (factual) or right (moral) answer. "

    The breakdown does suggest a lack of (or difficulty with obtaining) right (factual) answers, and indeed the existence of the poll suggests it is a matter of opinion. It is after all an opinion poll.

    I’m only extrapolating from David’s reference to relativism, which is normally related to objective (factual) standards of morality.

    The way David and other rightworlders use it though, it appears to mean ethics that isn’t situational. But then I don’t know of anyone who doesn’t take the situation into account when thinking about moral questions, generally speaking. For example it might be considered always wrong to lie, except then what should someone in WW2 have said to an SS officer who asks if they are hiding a jew?

  34. Frank

    " But then I don’t know of anyone who doesn’t take the situation into account when thinking about moral questions, generally speaking. For example it might be considered always wrong to lie, except then what should someone in WW2 have said to an SS officer who asks if they are hiding a jew?"

    I suspect that from the example given you do not beleive that it is always wrong to tell a lie. However you could have a view that it is always wrong to tell a lie, i.e.regardless of the situation, it is always wrong. So you can have some moral stances that have exceptions and you can also have some that are absolute.
    (or another way of looking at it – even for those with excpetions can be expressed in absolute terms where the excpetions are included in the definition of the morality concerned ) and I know what I mean by that but I concede it is not expressed at all clearly.

  35. It takes two to tango! The reason they have Ministerial posts etc, is because Unionists are happy to go along with it! What party is there now for disaffected Unionists , with both the UUP and DUP having signed up , and smaller Unionist parties having given up! This time last year it was "Sinn Fein in government over our dead bodies", yesterday it was the Ian and Martin reception for Irelands cricketers. How can anybody believe a word Paisley says! Paisley knows more about snow balls than cricket balls! If Captain O Neill had done a deal with SinnFein/IRA he would have caused an avalache!
    He never wanted power for himself were told? Yes and Joan Collins is a virgin!

  36. Daytripper, that’s fair enough I suppose. If the poll had been posted on a leftist site, phrased in different terms, then sure, the result would probably be quite different. It all depends on the audience, which is why these polls on blog sites cannot be said to be truly representative of public opinion.

  37. >>these polls on blog sites cannot be said to be truly representative of public opinion.<<

    You going for understatement of 2007, Tom?
    Far from representing public opinion, this poll doesn’t even represent ATW opinion.
    In fact, it does’t even necessarily represent the opinion of those who responded!

  38. It all depends on the audience

    there in lies the rub. i delayed voting because i knew it was a partisan stab. but decided what the hell, i have an opinion on the matter.

    regardless, its all completely moot without a reference point for a definition of terrorism. which is something even the nation states that comprise the UN cant even agree on.

  39. Dytripper, surely it is all part of the question and you define it for yourself. i.e.is it ever jsutified to have those you beleive to be terrorists, in government?

  40. Scouseproud,

    "Paisley knows more about snow balls than cricket balls!"

    LOL :0)

  41. I see the poll went to 35.4% Yes and 64.6% No before it was pulled.