Nigel Farage

[TinFoilHat]

Fascist nobody being given too much airtime by his media mates.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Fucking hell, halfmist is busy.

Has anybody seen Farage and ‘mist in the same room?

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

How the fuck is this even a news story let alone the leading news story on the BBC? I can only assume Andrew Neill is back……

 

[ZenHalfTimeCrock]

This is an ethical issue, isn’t it?

Open any introductory textbook on ethics and you will see that the three most influential theories in the field are Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics and Aristotelian virtue ethics.

In its classical form, as described by Jeremy Bentham, utilitarian moral decision-making is based on producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people affected by that decision.

As most people don’t like cunts and Farage is definitely one, utilitarians would therefore support Coutts’s decision.

Next up is Kant. According to the second formulation of his categorical imperative, all rational beings should be treated with respect.

Unfortunately, Farage is not a rational being. He is a toad-faced complete and utter **** and so is not entitled to be treated with respect. So, again, Coutts were right to tell him to fuck off out of it.

This just leaves virtue ethics. For Aristotle, ethics is to do with character building rather than consequences (utilitarianism) or adherence to rationally grounded, exceptionless moral principles (Kantian ethics). Instead it’s all about becoming a certain type of person.

Moral excellence is therefore a skill that has to be cultivated and extremes are to be avoided. So, for example, if someone is aiming to develop the virtue of courage, the vices of cowardice and recklessness should both be avoided (the black knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail is illustrative of the latter vice of excess).

Unfortunately, Farage suffers from a vice of deficiency, namely, that of being a bloviating, whinging, grifting ****. Instead of accepting the offer of a Nat West account, he has to go off on one and make out that he is a ‘man of the people’ doing us all a favour by standing up to the banks.

But this querulousness again indicates that he falls far short of Aristotelian standards.

In conclusion, all three of the great ethicists, though their approaches to moral decision making differ significantly, would converge on the view that Coutts were right in the first place.

So that’s the Farage issue looked at from the standpoint of applied ethics.

You’re welcome.

Actually only came here to post this:

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

This is an ethical issue, isn’t it?

Open any introductory textbook on ethics and you will see that the three most influential theories in the field are Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics and Aristotelian virtue ethics.

In its classical form, as described by Jeremy Bentham, utilitarian moral decision-making is based on producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people affected by that decision.

As most people don’t like cunts and Farage is definitely one, utilitarians would therefore support Coutts’s decision.

Next up is Kant. According to the second formulation of his categorical imperative, all rational beings should be treated with respect.

Unfortunately, Farage is not a rational being. He is a toad-faced complete and utter **** and so is not entitled to be treated with respect. So, again, Coutts were right to tell him to fuck off out of it.

This just leaves virtue ethics. For Aristotle, ethics is to do with character building rather than consequences (utilitarianism) or adherence to rationally grounded, exceptionless moral principles (Kantian ethics). Instead it’s all about becoming a certain type of person.

Moral excellence is therefore a skill that has to be cultivated and extremes are to be avoided. So, for example, if someone is aiming to develop the virtue of courage, the vices of cowardice and recklessness should both be avoided (the black knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail is illustrative of the latter vice of excess).

Unfortunately, Farage suffers from a vice of deficiency, namely, that of being a bloviating, whinging, grifting ****. Instead of accepting the offer of a Nat West account, he has to go off on one and make out that he is a ‘man of the people’ doing us all a favour by standing up to the banks.

But this querulousness again indicates that he falls far short of Aristotelian standards.

In conclusion, all three of the great ethicists, though their approaches to moral decision making differ significantly, would converge on the view that Coutts were right in the first place.

So that’s the Farage issue looked at from the standpoint of applied ethics.

You’re welcome.

Actually only came here to post this:

I do love academics.

 

[halfmist]

Why have you got a hardon for Farage?

But it’s not about Farage is it.
Let me spell it out, if you were refused an Account on the Basis of your political beliefs you would be on here jumping up and down saying the nasty Tories are now trying to get rid of Democracy

 

[halfmist]

Fucking hell, halfmist is busy.

Has anybody seen Farage and ‘mist in the same room?

I certainly am.
Someone has to bring a bit of common sense to the post.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Does Nigel Farage actually have political beliefs?

Imagine being daft enough to believe that.

 

[halfmist]

I do love academics.

I feel a thesis may be on its way.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

I certainly am.
Someone has to bring a bit of noncesense to the post.