in being disgusted with Oxford SU inviting Marine Lepen???

And it is different in different countries.
So if you emigrate, your thoughts and decisions are going to have to change!

Elegran. Your kids have different views to you. But if they are very different to you, chances are that their children may go even further.

My kids have grown up thoughts.

They just have the same thoughts as me!

If you emigrate, you can take your thoughts and opinions with you, but you act accordingly to their laws. If you don't like the laws, and don't want to end up in jail, you work to get them changed.

If my children were carbon copies of me, I would be flattered that they considered I was worth copying, but a bit worried that they were not using their own judgment.

"There are two things we should give our children: one is roots and the other is wings."

I said that they differed from each other, not that they all had different views from me. Each of them shares some of my attitudes and opinions, and has some which are different. In some things they are better than me! None of them has a philosophy that I find abhorrent, all are reasoning and caring human beings. I cannot imagine my grandchildren being other than reasoning and caring human beings either.

I am noit arrogant enough to believe that my views are the only valid ones.

Mine certainly have roots and wings.

Do you mean work to get the laws changed. Or work to get your thoughts to change?

It depends which seem to be wrong.

If careful consideration shows that the laws in this new country to which you have emigrated are unfair, and you can't live with them, then campaign to get them changed. (Same applies for laws in this country which don't seem right)

If the same careful thought shows that the laws are fine,and it is your expectations that are unreasonable, then abide by them and keep schtumm.

In other words, use your brain and heart.

I have just come back to this and think Elegran has pretty much said all I wanted to say, but I would like to pick up Soontobe on her question regarding our grown up children. The clue is in the question, they are grown up, what we used to laughingly call (in pre PC days) " free, white and over 21". I would no more set myself up as their moral guardian today than I would to any other adult.
If the law does not have the legs to do what you want it to do, by all means act to change it, but we have a precious freedom of choice as well as of speech in our country and I (so far) have confidence in that.

That is so true soontobe. We live our daily lives with one foot (or 3) in 3 countries. The legal, education, governement and election, health, social, etc, etc, etc- are so totally different- despite sharing a lot of our history and culture. The most difficult is not to adapt yourself, we both find it easy and actually, fascinating- but how each country will refuse to even begin to compare and to see that some things are done better (or very differently- which is not necessarily better)- and will just stick to their guns, come what may.

If the law is or becomes the main guidanceas to what a person believes, it means that their beliefs are fluid.

x post. I wrote my post before having seen granjura's.
My machine is slow, so sorry for x posts that I do.

For me Soontobe, having 'fluid' beliefs- or rather the capacity to adapt beliefs and opinions according to experience and new knowledge, is just so important. This is how we all evolve, and hopefully become 'better ' people in many ways. If, like us, you lived your daily lives spread across 3 sets of laws, and systems of every kind (as above) and have family spread right across the globe, some living a very different culture altogether- you just have to adapt, and be fluid as you say. Fundamental beliefs remain the same, of course.

As you probably know, granjura, the FN in France has a slightly different image from the NF in the UK. The have much more solid support here in fact in ?2005 Marine's father was in the last round of voting for president against Chirac. In rural areas here they always get at least 10% of the vote.
I've no idea though what her real principles are. She tries to appear more moderate than her father.
I can understand the interest from the Oxford debating group.

The law is made by people, and can be changed by people, according to what they believe. It is not a fast process, but that what democracy is all about.

What the law enacts is governed by what is believed by the population as a whole to be a good standard of behaviour. Their elected representatives in government make or change laws according to public opinion (influenced in part by the policies of the part they represent, which have different views on what is good for the country as a whole)

How people act is governed by the law. What they believe is a good standard of behaviour is governed by how they were brought up, what examples they have to copy, and what their own reading, experiences and analysis have shown them. How fluid that is depends on their personalities and thought processes.

If the law becomes the main guidanceas (sic) as to what a person believes it means their beliefs are fluid
I don't think the law ever dictates or has the right to dictate what we believe, not in a free democracy. Go back 80 years to pre-war Germany, or 50 years to the DDR or look at Burma or North Korea today for examples of that. So no, I cannot see where you are coming from with that assertion.

Good post Elegran- but it is amazing how different laws can be, even in countries like the ones I mentioned- which are culturally so so close. So close even.... that half the people I meet who have a totally different set of laws (and everything else!) live less than 1/2 mile away. Both side are very rural, and people can be very insular and will not even consider thinking about different ways of doing things.

soutra is a (sic) really needed for what is clearly merely a typo?

When they were young my children were deliberately exposed to people whose thoughts, ideas and lifestyles are very different from those of mine and my husband's. We wanted them to be able to experience difference so that they would learn to value people even when they held different or opposing views or had different value systems or lifestyles. As a consequence I think my adult children are very well able to form their own opinions and just as importantly are able to get along with people who are very different from themselves.

Yep!

I spend a while constructing the posts before I send them, rosequartz

See what I mean about the button?

I think the OP is confusing Marine Le Pen with her father. She is a far more attractive (both politically and aesthetically ) than her intransigent father.She has support in France, and only a couple of weeks ago she had 25% of Parisien gays supporting her policies... a bit of a turn up for the books, and probably sending her Papa into a flat spin. The Oxford Union has every right to invite controversial speakers. Where would free debate be if debating societies invited speakers of the same ilk?

I brought up my daughters to question everything, and of course it became a whip with which to beat myself when they were teenagers, but I don't regret it now . They were exposed to all shades of political ideology, including several summer holidays in the company of a French 'signed-up' member of Jean-Marie Le Pen's FN in the Thatcher days (who our French friend thought walked on water). We all loved him to bits, and found his politics highly amusing! Needless to say his politics had no effect on my girls.But neither did any other shade of politics from blue through to green!

Freedom of speech is one of the last rights we have. It would be a complete travesty if this was yet another right to be abandoned for Political Correctness

'Je suis Charlie Hebdo'

No confusion- she is all the more dangerous for being 'butter wouldn't melt' unlike her father- and for hiding her awful ideologies behind her 'average french woman' face and words. She is only different on the surface- and it is because she has such a high % of the vote that I am concerned about giving her more 'credibility' by associating her with Oxford Uni.

But yes, freedom of speech and all that- I can see.

I find myself, to some extent, agreeing with both sides of the argument - which is very unsettling.

However, I don't agree that just because a majority, even a large majority, of the population supports a certain person or policy it necessarily means that person or policy is an admirable one. Hitler's ideas were, at least initially, very popular in Germany.

I couldnt care lessssss about my typo!

<feels like being naughty and doing them all over the plaice!>

Cant remember what I was going to wrote now!

<Fells like opeining a new thread for them!>!!

You have a point their grannyactivist.

I am actully very surprised that people on here are fine about their fluid views.
I would feel very uncomfortable myself.
It means that I cannot evern believe myself.
It would mean that I moght well disagree with myself next week. yuk!