Peter Dow

[abdoujaparov]

With the greatest of respect to Mr Dow, he clearly has mental health issues and I'm not sure that repeatedly poking him with a metaphorical stick is either productive or good entertainment...in fact, to my mind, it's starting to feel a bit like some good old fashioned bullying....

[russycarps]

I'd imagine he is made up that his views are getting such a wide audience and that people are taking the time and trouble to discuss this with him. It's not a gang of people calling him a tit, its a gang of people debating and pointing out the flaws in his ideas.

Far from bullying from what I can see.

[abdoujaparov]

well it feels to me about one step away from laughing at the weird kid in the play ground whose trousers are too short

FFS, the guy is clearly delusional and exhibits plenty of the bahviours I have seen from years of working with people with mental health issues

[sifi]

So he can't or won't work and posts all this stuff because he's sick, and not lazy?

[jump]

In fairness Petey did say since they won't let him claim dole money anymore he started claiming wellfare as he started cracking up from stress.

[abdoujaparov]

So he can't or won't work and posts all this stuff because he's sick, and not lazy?

[Peter Dow]

Bollocks. What you need to get elected and re-elected is the popular vote, which can be won without any intelligence by the candidate themselves. He may be more of a bumbling idiot than a complete lack of intelligence, but presidents are a face for those that influence them. George Bush was aided by the bumbling idiot from Texas persona. It was a key part of his electoral campaigns, and a key part of his way to appeal to voters.

[kaosmark2]

I don't think any of us have the right or ability to actually declare he's definitely got mental health issues on the basis of a few posts on an internet forum. He might, but he might also just have some crazy ideas, or even being playing long-term internet wind-up (albeit that seems pretty unlikely).

And considering his reactions to the Condi jokes - which are the things that are closest to probing, pointing and laughing rather than just trying to explain the flaws of stupid ideas - I'd say it doesn't seem he minds the type of attention.

Peter, do you feel we're bullying you, or are we just a load of ignoramuses who don't understand the true meaning of repulicanism, democracy and how awesome Condoleeza Rice is?

[kaosmark2]

Well there are political skills of appealing to voters which politicians can often demonstrate when called upon to perform - make a speech, answer questions, criticise an opponent and so on.

It seems to have a lot to do with the politician making very simple points that simple people can understand and latch on to, which give them a reason to support that politician. Teachers and lawyers also have those skills to explain things to a jury or classroom of ordinary people. All this takes some intelligence, not exceptional intelligence but a decent amount.

But cretins don't have those political skills and I don't think the Queen has much of those political skills either. I think if the Queen had to run for election for head of state against skilled politicians she would be struggling to get elected. Her general lack of intelligence means she'd be struggling to do anything much more than smile and wave, read a prepared script, ask "And what do you do?" etc.

[eFestivals]

I think if the Queen had to run for election for head of state against skilled politicians she would be struggling to get elected.

You're utterly wrong. Sad but true.

You say you're a democrat. So why has it passed you by that it's beyond all doubt that a majority of people of the UK fully support the idea of a monarch as the head of state?

Or are you the sort of 'democrat' who thinks that votes should only be made by the people who support your ideas?

You keep saying that you think democracy is about power being in the hands of all of the people. How come you exclude those people who support the idea of a monarch as head of state from that "all of the people"?

[russycarps]

I don't think any of us have the right or ability to actually declare he's definitely got mental health issues on the basis of a few posts on an internet forum. He might, but he might also just have some crazy ideas, or even being playing long-term internet wind-up (albeit that seems pretty unlikely).

And considering his reactions to the Condi jokes - which are the things that are closest to probing, pointing and laughing rather than just trying to explain the flaws of stupid ideas - I'd say it doesn't seem he minds the type of attention.

Peter, do you feel we're bullying you, or are we just a load of ignoramuses who don't understand the true meaning of repulicanism, democracy and how awesome Condoleeza Rice is?

[Peter Dow]

Plus, you've got the whole trust issue. The public tends not to trust anyone they perceive as much more intelligent than they are, because they're seen as devious/capable of pulling the wool over their eyes. And perceived as a threat.

less intelligent people, or people perceived as less intelligent, tend to be more popular with voters, because the public thinks they're less capable of being deceitful. And easier to control, less of a threat etc.

Think yourself lucky we don't have democratically elected presidents, because with our culture's obsession with celebrity, we'd probably vote in Jordan.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Peter Dow

[kaosmark2]

Actually no, the probability is that the people would elect one of the candidates of the main political parties and so the British president would likely be the Conservative Party or Labour Party candidate and I can't see that either would pick Jordan as their candidate.

Chances are the big political parties would choose as their candidate for president one of their party leaders. Maybe not but I can't see them picking an air-head.

This is what happens in the USA. Americans have plenty of celebrities which they could in theory want to vote in for president or state governor. But celebrity film stars like President Ronald Reagan and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger only had a chance to get elected because they had support as Republican party candidates.

Americans end up always voting for the Republican or Democratic party candidate for president.

[diddly-dee]

The BBC's got a page up today with portrait photographs of a dozen famous Scots, I reckon Mr Dow should bring it up to thirteen (or even get rid of one or two who are on there whom, unlike Mr Dow, I've never heard of).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-15797649

[Peter Dow]

It must be scary to have people banging on your windows. i hope it's sorted out for you now. Ignoring them is probably a good idea, I think the more you react, the worse it'll be. They look to be doing it for fun, and probably enjoy teasing you, and trying to provoke a response.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Peter Dow

[jump]

The BBC's got a page up today with portrait photographs of a dozen famous Scots, I reckon Mr Dow should bring it up to thirteen (or even get rid of one or two who are on there whom, unlike Mr Dow, I've never heard of).

http://www.bbc.co.uk...otland-15797649

[abdoujaparov]

I don't think any of us have the right or ability to actually declare he's definitely got mental health issues on the basis of a few posts on an internet forum

[eFestivals]

I'm not claiming to be able to undertake online diagnoses. But I have dealt professionally withg enough people with mental health issues to recognise the possible symptoms. You might want to bear it in mind as a possibility

As I'm sure you've seen from his posts, Peter rejects the whole basis for any such diagnosis, on the basis that it's made-up baseless bollocks.

And while I don't fully agree with his stance towards that, he's got an accurate factual point with saying that.

There's as much of a basis for saying that you have mental health issues by having bought into that made-up baseless bollocks ... because after all, to identify someone as abnormal you first have to define what is normal: and you can't, not with anything that can stand up to any reasonable scrutiny. All you can say with certainly is that there's a difference in mental attitudes between all people.

[abdoujaparov]

As I'm sure you've seen from his posts, Peter rejects the whole basis for any such diagnosis, on the basis that it's made-up baseless bollocks.

And while I don't fully agree with his stance towards that, he's got an accurate factual point with saying that.

There's as much of a basis for saying that you have mental health issues by having bought into that made-up baseless bollocks ... because after all, to identify someone as abnormal you first have to define what is normal: and you can't, not with anything that can stand up to any reasonable scrutiny. All you can say with certainly is that there's a difference in mental attitudes between all people.

[eFestivals]

*yawn*

Yes, you've got views on mental health diagnoses. But you've never (to the best of my knowledge) worked with people with mental health issues. I have. My experience suggests that dismissing merntal illness as "baseless bollocks" is just a little bit sweeping...

You've missed the subtle difference between what I said and what you want to think I said.

I've not said that there's no such thing as mental illness. I've said that the basis used for saying what is and what isn't mental illness is baseless.

Come back to me when there is a real basis that can definitively define what is and what isn't mental illness. Oh, you can't, and never will.

[eFestivals]

The point of me saying that has some real relevance here.

You've concluded that you suspect that Peter is suffering from a mental illness of some kind - and you might be right.

But the basis for you saying that is nothing more than his views being out of step with the standard views of society. So rather than it being the mental illness you wish to see it as it might simply be that he doesn't buy into the same worthless societal bollocks that the rest of us do.

There's no law that says he has to, and there's nothing about that that demonstrates a mental illness. He's no less allowed to have his view than you or me; the fact that it's different says nothing apart from it's different.

There's far more of a real-world basis to say that those with religious beliefs (or belief in fairies at the bottom of the garden) are the nutters than Peter, but your 'science' warps the rules with that one, only because it's too scared to stand up for itself against society - something Peter has more bottle for than that science.

[Peter Dow]

it's you that's missed the point. Putting in a president as the head of state doesn't change a thing, not a jot.

It's the policies of any president that changes things against the type of monarchy we operate - a type of monarchy where the PM exercises power, and exercises that power on the basis of having been voted into that position just as a president would have been.

Different policies make a difference; changing heads changes nothing at all.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Peter Dow

[kaosmark2]

I'm not claiming to be able to undertake online diagnoses. But I have dealt professionally withg enough people with mental health issues to recognise the possible symptoms. You might want to bear it in mind as a possibility

[abdoujaparov]

I've said what I think. Noit interested in a debate about the realities, or diagnoses of mental illness. neither am I interested in a debate with people who think taking the piss out of people with "odd" ideas is fun

enjoy yourselves

[Uncle Liam]

Bloody hell, cant remember a killjoy like this since Love Not Riots were at there peak and tried to stop people dancing at festivals.