Excellent piece by Tom Harris MP


David Davis

About right and wrong. Do go and see the whole thing. Parliament does contain a few sensible realists, and individuals who worry about things, after all.

He even mentions Frank Field! Perhaps there is hope.

About these ads

10 responses to “Excellent piece by Tom Harris MP

  1. Really? Whether or not Harris was right I thought that the way in which he went about it probably made the prospect of any progress less, not more liekyl: http://blog.matthewcain.co.uk/the-folly-of-tom-harris-mp/

  2. No, sorry, that’s an awful piece. Why? Because it’s wrong. Why? Because it’s wrong. Why? Because it’s wrong.

    Much though I approve of moral ideas, they must be argued for by a means other than dogmatic yelling.

    Besides, it demonstrates that when we support other people through tax, we develop an interest in how expensive they are, and therefore a sense of entitlement to intrude on their private lives.

    He says at the end that he’s not remotely interested in what adults do in the privacy of their own homes, but that’s not true: he’s interested in whether or not they have babies.

    He doesn’t want to be interested in this, but is being suckered in to it.

  3. This is part of what I think will be an interesting experiment I am conducting on this blog.

    I intend to publish more pieces, when they shall be found, by socialists, about what they think their philosophy’s moral problems are going to be.

    I will hail these “mea culpas” as excellent, and trumpet the honour of the writers.

    The responses of the libertarian commentariat will be instructive.

    It already interests me that this blog gets more hostile comments as a % of the total per unit post per unit time than other “conservative” blogs.

    This means we are reaching out more: it is good.

  4. And

    Having said that, I do actually agree with Harris, to the effect that what these young women are doing is _wrong_ .

    “Right” and “Wrong” exist. Wisdom arrives when you have found out which is which. Right is good: wrong is shitty. (Shit is not good: that’s why it is exited.)

    The reason that most of these young woman did what they did is that socialism deliberately vandalised civilisation, so that they would think that what they did would be right.

  5. I do not blame the poor young women individually: you can’t do that. They have been deliberately denied the vista of any alternative views.

  6. Perhaps leftist social workers and teachers and politicians just thought they’d be an easy f*** (for the afore-said groups.)

  7. So if you were to create lots of them, it would being down the cost of prostitution: the lefties _do_ understand the market after all.

    And then if _you_, a lefty governmentista, made prostitution illegal, then only _your_ friends would be allowed to run it, you could rake them off, and then make even _more_ money.

  8. sorrry, “_bring_ “

  9. Dave:

    “Having said that, I do actually agree with Harris, to the effect that what these young women are doing is _wrong_ .”

    Enjoying yourself and making good money for voluntary consenting acts as a ‘free spirit’ is WRONG???

    If that’s wrong’, I dread to think what “right” might look like.

    I met my present girlfriend ‘that way’…

    Advance to Google Images and key in “Sandahl Bergman” Like that!

    Tony

  10. Simon Gardner

    I am NOT best pleased with Mr Harris. He has twice spiked posts in a thread he started on his blog – apparently on the specious grounds that they were “factually wrong” – they were completely accurate – or “too offensive” – ie inconvenient to Tom Harris.

    He thus allows only one side of an argument to be put – the one convenient to Mr Harris’s original point of view.

    This in the face of therefore unrefuted claims that no modern christian atrocities are cited (unrefuted because Tom Harris censors them). No doubt “I was a Christian, and involved in a very evangelical church…” had some bearing on that.

    If you are going to throw a subject open for public debate (in this case by ridiculing some complainants to the ASA), it behoves you to allow said public debate.

    It’s not how one expects an MP to behave. The man is a disgrace to his office.