This is getting ridiculous and oh so desperate.:rolleyes:
There is plenty of slapstick garbage for the under fives you can watch if that's what you are into...
Many people have enjoyed the show over the years thanks to the contestants who actually make an effort. Sorry if that's hard for you to swallow, but not everyone enjoys being spoon-fed cack 24/7.
I think their "entertainment" is in spoiling something more intelligent people enjoy watching and bringing it down to a level they too can understand...
I can't stand people who think that they're better than others just because they're "more intelligent". I also don't understand why you think that Strictly is a program that "more intelligent people enjoy".
Strictly is a program for everyone and everyone has the right to vote how they choose. Just because they don't vote in a way that you agree with doesn't make them any less intelligent than you.
I don't support the comments about intelligent people voting for good reasons and unintelligent people voting for Ann, but I agree that it is hard to see an intelligent reason for voting for her on dance grounds, or personal grounds. Unlike John Sergeant she doesn't have a winning personality.
I don't support the comments about intelligent people voting for good reasons and unintelligent people voting for Ann, but I agree that it is hard to see an intelligent reason for voting for her on dance grounds, or personal grounds. Unlike John Sergeant she doesn't have a winning personality.
The point is that intelligent people know when to stop...
When part of their "entertainment" is in the fact that other people are getting hacked off with it then I think describing them as unintelligent is fair comment.
The core idea of democratic voting is that given two reconcilable positions the minority should give way to the majority thus keeping the peace.
Strictly voting is not one person one vote, so that a minority of determined multi voters will overwhelm the majority of single voters. Democratic voting works more or less, and is accepted as such, but Strictly voting is not democratic. In spite of what DS "Least Favourite" poll says it looks like AW will be in the Final.
I find it telling that many MPs, and people who have interviewed Ann, be they completely opposed to every political opinion she has held (as I am) and/or gay, have nothing bad to say about the woman. Indeed, they speak highly of her.
You can like somebody and disagree with what they stand for.
Ann was a very honest politician who stood up for what she believed in and never once attempted to dupe or con voters. She emerged from the expenses scandal completely unblemished.
It's an entertainment show - if she's entertaining the public (which she clearly is) she stays.
I hope she wins - she's the highlight of my weekend. First thing I've genuinely LOL'd at on TV for ages.
Judge Dread, I take it you are male?
Because Matt Baker's backside was the highlight of mine! :o:o:o
You can like somebody and disagree with what they stand for.
Ann was a very honest politician who stood up for what she believed in and never once attempted to dupe or con voters. She emerged from the expenses scandal completely unblemished.
Only if you believe that what they stand for is morally acceptable. How can somebody who stands for many things that are morally repungent be a good person? For example: If somebody stood for legalising murder, or advocating mass genocide, could you still like them? Or would you find their political opinions indicative of their personal opinions?
For a contestant who wants to take the moral high ground I find her willingness to be dragged along the floor far more distasteful then any samba roll.
Those of us who despise her and everything she stands for shoudn't be dismissed as simply Tories. I like to think we are enlightened people living in an enlightened age. I would abhor her policies if she was Labour, Green or Monster Raving Loony.
Regardless of ability we have been force fed AW as the "comedy turn/underdog". It is the inability of people to see through this blatant manipulation by the BBC promoters irks me so much.
We, as voters were not allowed to choose a favourite underdog to support ourselves we were handed one on a plate. This manipulation of the show which allows someone to dictate how she will dance, what she will wear and no doubt, who she would dance with. Then topped off by never appearing before half way is patently unfair.
Only if you believe that what they stand for is morally acceptable. How can somebody who stands for many things that are morally repungent be a good person? For example: If somebody stood for legalising murder, or advocating mass genocide, could you still like them? Or would you find their political opinions indicative of their personal opinions?
But the problem with your argument is moral subjectivism. Ann would argue that the current abortion laws for eg do indeed legalise murder of infants. You do not agree with her (neither for the record do I) but her belief is no more demonstrably true or false than yours or mine on the issue. It is a view held by many millions of people, particularly those who adhere to the teachings of Islam, Roman Catholicism and most mainline Christian churches. Where you and I differ is that I do not believe that a person who holds differing opinions (for that is all these are) which I disagree with is automatically a 'bad' person, particularly when those views are honestly held.
But the problem with your argument is moral subjectivism. Ann would argue that the current abortion laws for eg do indeed legalise murder of infants. You do not agree with her (neither for the record do I) but her belief is no more demonstrably true or false than yours or mine on the issue. It is a view held by many millions of people, particularly those who adhere to the teachings of Islam, Roman Catholicism and most mainline Christian churches. Where you and I differ is that I do not believe that a person who holds differing opinions (for that is all these are) which I disagree with is automatically a 'bad' person, particularly when those views are honestly held.
Absolutely, I've never claimed that my personal opinion that Ann is morally awful is objective, although I've used objective elements to form my subjective opinion. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish.
If you believe that their beliefs are bad, can they not in combination form a bad person? For example, if you met someone whose belief was that murder of twelve-year-old girls was acceptable, would you go "ah well, they were just raised that way, they're still good people"?
If you would consider such a murderer or a rapist (for example) to be a good person simply because they don't think there's anything wrong with their belief, then fair enough.
But if you would dislike them as people, then the same is true of someone whose opinions you disagree with politically. It's simply a matter of scale and specifics.
On things like economics and transport there's no real reason to dislike anyone. But when it comes to ethical issues, I don't think there's anything abnormal or wrong about disliking those who you think are ethically horrible.
I can't agree that a view can be made acceptable/palatable simply by virtue of being honestly held. I'm sure Hitler was entirely true to himself in desiring the extermination of the Jews et al and professing his hatred openly and unequivocally. That does not make him admirable.
Absolutely, I've never claimed that my personal opinion that Ann is morally awful is objective, although I've used objective elements to form my subjective opinion. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish.
If you would consider such a murderer or a rapist (for example) to be a good person simply because they don't think there's anything wrong with their belief, then fair enough.
On things like economics and transport there's no real reason to dislike anyone. But when it comes to ethical issues, I don't think there's anything abnormal or wrong about disliking those who you think are ethically horrible.
But you are not comparing like with like are you? There are not many people who think killing 12 year old girls is acceptable. There really can't be any sensible moral argument for such a proposition so it's a pretty cut and dried moral proposition and it's not unreasonable to condemn as morally reprehensible (or in fact mentally unhinged) those who would advocate that view.
But abortion, for eg, is a much more complex issue. For example, our laws permit babies born capable of life after an abortion to be 'allowed to die' when other babies born at the same age of gestation who are 'wanted' are saved. Ann called that 'murder' and, although I do not support amending the abortion laws I can concede she has a reasonable argument. I support legal abortion because I believe that, although it involves 'killing' the alternatives involve imposing even more suffering on women and would result in back street operations (in a nutshell).
I actually disagree with your final point too. I find far more to dislike with people/politicians who advocate policies of a non ethical nature for others which they disregard in their own lives because they are hypocrites than I do with those who honestly hold opposing ethical views. But there we must agree to disagree. This is a light entertainment show not a political soapbox.:)
I can't agree that a view can be made acceptable/palatable simply by virtue of being honestly held. I'm sure Hitler was entirely true to himself in desiring the extermination of the Jews et al and professing his hatred openly and unequivocally. That does not make him admirable.
I must say I found the performance a bit sad and undignified on Saturday not a bit funny, it was almost like people laughing at the girl in PE because she couldn't do a forward roll. Surely even she must have realised that as she pulled her skirt down to cover her modesty.
But you are not comparing like with like are you? There are not many people who think killing 12 year old girls is acceptable. There really can't be any sensible moral argument for such a proposition so it's a pretty cut and dried moral proposition and it's not unreasonable to condemn as morally reprehensible (or in fact mentally unhinged) those who would advocate that view.
But abortion, for eg, is a much more complex issue. For example, our laws permit babies born capable of life after an abortion to be 'allowed to die' when other babies born at the same age of gestation who are 'wanted' are saved. Ann called that 'murder' and, although I do not support amending the abortion laws I can concede she has a reasonable argument. I support legal abortion because I believe that, although it involves 'killing' the alternatives involve imposing even more suffering on women and would result in back street operations (in a nutshell).
I actually disagree with your final point too. I find far more to dislike with people/politicians who advocate policies of a non ethical nature for others which they disregard in their own lives because they are hypocrites than I do with those who honestly hold opposing ethical views. But there we must agree to disagree. This is a light entertainment show not a political soapbox.:)
But I never claimed to be comparing like with like, and I never claimed to be stating that my opinion of Ann is fact!
Honestly, what I'mt rying and obviously failing to articulate is this:
Sometimes politics and personality/opinion are separate. Sometimes they aren't. A person's political views ons omething like abortion come directly from their personal life, personality and opinions. It's easy to tell from political views on ethics what their PERSONAL ethics are.
If you find someone's personal beliefs and ethics morally repulsive, how much of their views can you find repulsive before you start to dislike them?
We're trying to point out that for many of us it's difficult to separate a person's political savagery (and that's what many of us believed her views to be) from their personal life. How can somebody be as sweet as pie at home, yet go on record trying their hardest to harm a person's quality of life and reduce equality between the sexes, and vote for olicies that provoke and promote intolerance and hatred?
We don't believe that the distinction is as black and white as Ann fans are making out.
I hasten to add, however, that those aren't the only reasons to dislike her. Even without her political background she would be an embarrassment.
We're trying to point out that for many of us it's difficult to separate a person's political savagery (and that's what many of us believed her views to be) from their personal life. How can somebody be as sweet as pie at home, yet go on record trying their hardest to harm a person's quality of life and reduce equality between the sexes, and vote for olicies that provoke and promote intolerance and hatred?
We don't believe that the distinction is as black and white as Ann fans are making out.
I hasten to add, however, that those aren't the only reasons to dislike her. Even without her political background she would be an embarrassment.
You need to go out more. It's a weekend entertainment TV programme.
I love strictly primarily for watching the celebs develop their skills each week Anne has never had the basic steps! She is annoying me more each week and to watch celebs who are giving their all get the boot makes it worse.
You need to go out more. It's a weekend entertainment TV programme.
I do go out more. I have a job in a very prestigious school. I have a boyfriend who I'll probably marry one day. I dance and skate and travel, nationally and internationally. I write stories. I meet authors and actors. I go to concerts and see theatre.
I have no need to get out more. The fact that I happen to value talent and show political awareness does not show ignorance on MY part.
...I agree that it is hard to see an intelligent reason for voting for her on dance grounds, or personal grounds.
You miss the very important "We don't really care who wins, but Widders and Anton winning would be quite funny given how precious these showbiz types are" grounds for voting.
When Gav bites the dust, I'll be voting for Widders and Anton. Not because of Ann, but partly because I find Anton's hammy acting whilst doing the performance highly entertaining, and partly to annoy people like you.
Comments
Many people have enjoyed the show over the years thanks to the contestants who actually make an effort. Sorry if that's hard for you to swallow, but not everyone enjoys being spoon-fed cack 24/7.
I can't stand people who think that they're better than others just because they're "more intelligent". I also don't understand why you think that Strictly is a program that "more intelligent people enjoy".
Strictly is a program for everyone and everyone has the right to vote how they choose. Just because they don't vote in a way that you agree with doesn't make them any less intelligent than you.
When part of their "entertainment" is in the fact that other people are getting hacked off with it then I think describing them as unintelligent is fair comment.
Strictly voting is not one person one vote, so that a minority of determined multi voters will overwhelm the majority of single voters. Democratic voting works more or less, and is accepted as such, but Strictly voting is not democratic. In spite of what DS "Least Favourite" poll says it looks like AW will be in the Final.
You can like somebody and disagree with what they stand for.
Ann was a very honest politician who stood up for what she believed in and never once attempted to dupe or con voters. She emerged from the expenses scandal completely unblemished.
Judge Dread, I take it you are male?
Because Matt Baker's backside was the highlight of mine!
Only if you believe that what they stand for is morally acceptable. How can somebody who stands for many things that are morally repungent be a good person? For example: If somebody stood for legalising murder, or advocating mass genocide, could you still like them? Or would you find their political opinions indicative of their personal opinions?
Those of us who despise her and everything she stands for shoudn't be dismissed as simply Tories. I like to think we are enlightened people living in an enlightened age. I would abhor her policies if she was Labour, Green or Monster Raving Loony.
We, as voters were not allowed to choose a favourite underdog to support ourselves we were handed one on a plate. This manipulation of the show which allows someone to dictate how she will dance, what she will wear and no doubt, who she would dance with. Then topped off by never appearing before half way is patently unfair.
But the problem with your argument is moral subjectivism. Ann would argue that the current abortion laws for eg do indeed legalise murder of infants. You do not agree with her (neither for the record do I) but her belief is no more demonstrably true or false than yours or mine on the issue. It is a view held by many millions of people, particularly those who adhere to the teachings of Islam, Roman Catholicism and most mainline Christian churches. Where you and I differ is that I do not believe that a person who holds differing opinions (for that is all these are) which I disagree with is automatically a 'bad' person, particularly when those views are honestly held.
Absolutely, I've never claimed that my personal opinion that Ann is morally awful is objective, although I've used objective elements to form my subjective opinion. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish.
If you believe that their beliefs are bad, can they not in combination form a bad person? For example, if you met someone whose belief was that murder of twelve-year-old girls was acceptable, would you go "ah well, they were just raised that way, they're still good people"?
If you would consider such a murderer or a rapist (for example) to be a good person simply because they don't think there's anything wrong with their belief, then fair enough.
But if you would dislike them as people, then the same is true of someone whose opinions you disagree with politically. It's simply a matter of scale and specifics.
On things like economics and transport there's no real reason to dislike anyone. But when it comes to ethical issues, I don't think there's anything abnormal or wrong about disliking those who you think are ethically horrible.
But you are not comparing like with like are you? There are not many people who think killing 12 year old girls is acceptable. There really can't be any sensible moral argument for such a proposition so it's a pretty cut and dried moral proposition and it's not unreasonable to condemn as morally reprehensible (or in fact mentally unhinged) those who would advocate that view.
But abortion, for eg, is a much more complex issue. For example, our laws permit babies born capable of life after an abortion to be 'allowed to die' when other babies born at the same age of gestation who are 'wanted' are saved. Ann called that 'murder' and, although I do not support amending the abortion laws I can concede she has a reasonable argument. I support legal abortion because I believe that, although it involves 'killing' the alternatives involve imposing even more suffering on women and would result in back street operations (in a nutshell).
I actually disagree with your final point too. I find far more to dislike with people/politicians who advocate policies of a non ethical nature for others which they disregard in their own lives because they are hypocrites than I do with those who honestly hold opposing ethical views. But there we must agree to disagree. This is a light entertainment show not a political soapbox.:)
Oh, so Ann is now being compared to Hitler?
Don't you just love it on DS. :eek:
But I never claimed to be comparing like with like, and I never claimed to be stating that my opinion of Ann is fact!
Honestly, what I'mt rying and obviously failing to articulate is this:
Sometimes politics and personality/opinion are separate. Sometimes they aren't. A person's political views ons omething like abortion come directly from their personal life, personality and opinions. It's easy to tell from political views on ethics what their PERSONAL ethics are.
If you find someone's personal beliefs and ethics morally repulsive, how much of their views can you find repulsive before you start to dislike them?
We're trying to point out that for many of us it's difficult to separate a person's political savagery (and that's what many of us believed her views to be) from their personal life. How can somebody be as sweet as pie at home, yet go on record trying their hardest to harm a person's quality of life and reduce equality between the sexes, and vote for olicies that provoke and promote intolerance and hatred?
We don't believe that the distinction is as black and white as Ann fans are making out.
I hasten to add, however, that those aren't the only reasons to dislike her. Even without her political background she would be an embarrassment.
You need to go out more. It's a weekend entertainment TV programme.
Of course I've no actual evidence, but I bet Hitler was a better dancer.
I do go out more. I have a job in a very prestigious school. I have a boyfriend who I'll probably marry one day. I dance and skate and travel, nationally and internationally. I write stories. I meet authors and actors. I go to concerts and see theatre.
I have no need to get out more. The fact that I happen to value talent and show political awareness does not show ignorance on MY part.
You miss the very important "We don't really care who wins, but Widders and Anton winning would be quite funny given how precious these showbiz types are" grounds for voting.
When Gav bites the dust, I'll be voting for Widders and Anton. Not because of Ann, but partly because I find Anton's hammy acting whilst doing the performance highly entertaining, and partly to annoy people like you.