"Currants Bw..."

[HCZ_Reborn]

i don't hate religious people until they start trying to impose their beliefs on others

Thus why Islam so richly earns my contempt. Jihad is a form of religious propagation, there to punish the non believer as well as prove the devotion of the martyr.

Christianity of course did this, when the Reconquista happened in Spain you had the formation of the Spanish Inquisition (which still exists now as the Congregation of the Doctrine of the faith) which was there to torture people who’s conversion from Islam to Roman Catholicism was considered inauthentic.


Islam not having the same central organising principle outside the caliphate that existed in Europe and the Middle East, has had no function for moderating the faith and the exporting of Wahhabism (along with the murder of moderate Muslims by the British East India company) means that the faith by and large has become absolutist and dogmatic)

Islam pushes itself on the west and the west has genuflected to this by inventing the term Islamophobia. Islamophobia being the label attached to anyone who criticises the faith, the cultural practices it perpetuates and allows too many Muslims to claim special dispensation to not be offended. In a school in Yorkshire when a Quran was scuffed, the local denizens of the religion of peace got involved along with the police who showed a disgracefully supine attitude to the local imam who had no business being involved to begin with. When they trotted out the mother of the student supposedly involved they made her cover her hair in respect of grown men.

A teacher is still in hiding for showing his students an image of the prophet. Which is still better than France where a teacher was beheaded for it, and an office full of cartoonists pumped with bullets.


But there at least the perpetrators were killed because France as imperfect as it is, understands separation between church and state.

Our police apologise for any offence caused.

[Letters]

I don’t want to defend NQ here but I’m really not at all sure how you could have thought he was an atheist. He doesn’t rip on Letters for being a Christian, he rips on him for not being a proper Christian.
Mmm. His definition of what a "proper" Christian is seems a bit confused though.
I mean, he doesn't seem to like the idea of churches - I think by that he means all the administrative and power structures in some of them, and he does have a point there. That is all man-made. But when I tell him my church isn't like that, it just started in someone's house, he calls it a cult without knowing a thing about it :lol:. There's pretty clear instruction in the Bible to keep meeting together. Which brings me on to the fact that he doesn't seem to believe in the Bible, which is a strange stance for a Christian - although I'm not clear if he'd use that label about himself.

[Letters]

well of course somone can claim to 'know' things but aren't they exagerrating what is only a belief?

you can't know something unless you have evidence - i might believe it's raining outside, but i won't really know it's raining unless i look out of the window

that's the difference between knowledge and belief

Well, I guess in terms of religious belief one would claim that the evidence comes from personal experience - and the experiences of others.
Which might seem a bit woolly, and yes by definition there has to be an element of faith.
But you can certainly "know" things which aren't true because the evidence you saw wasn't correct.

https://twitter.com/onein300/status/1660151429053440001

[Mac76]

Well, I guess in terms of religious belief one would claim that the evidence comes from personal experience - and the experiences of others.
Which might seem a bit woolly, and yes by definition there has to be an element of faith.
But you can certainly "know" things which aren't true because the evidence you saw wasn't correct.

https://twitter.com/onein300/status/1660151429053440001

:lol:

a very appropriate example but taht tweet says very clearly "Stick to data driven science, question, state facts, look for flaws and then look again & again. Searching for, or repeating what you want to hear is NOT science."

[Mac76]

Thus why Islam so richly earns my contempt. Jihad is a form of religious propagation, there to punish the non believer as well as prove the devotion of the martyr.

Christianity of course did this, when the Reconquista happened in Spain you had the formation of the Spanish Inquisition (which still exists now as the Congregation of the Doctrine of the faith) which was there to torture people who’s conversion from Islam to Roman Catholicism was considered inauthentic.


Islam not having the same central organising principle outside the caliphate that existed in Europe and the Middle East, has had no function for moderating the faith and the exporting of Wahhabism (along with the murder of moderate Muslims by the British East India company) means that the faith by and large has become absolutist and dogmatic)

Islam pushes itself on the west and the west has genuflected to this by inventing the term Islamophobia. Islamophobia being the label attached to anyone who criticises the faith, the cultural practices it perpetuates and allows too many Muslims to claim special dispensation to not be offended. In a school in Yorkshire when a Quran was scuffed, the local denizens of the religion of peace got involved along with the police who showed a disgracefully supine attitude to the local imam who had no business being involved to begin with. When they trotted out the mother of the student supposedly involved they made her cover her hair in respect of grown men.

A teacher is still in hiding for showing his students an image of the prophet. Which is still better than France where a teacher was beheaded for it, and an office full of cartoonists pumped with bullets.


But there at least the perpetrators were killed because France as imperfect as it is, understands separation between church and state.

Our police apologise for any offence caused.

it's not just Islam though, there are plenty of Catholic/Protestant schools in this country whcih tell impressionable young children that God definitely exists - when i was a kid we all sang hymns in assembly and repeated the Lord's prayer - i coudl even still repeat it to you now

that's indoctrination - AFAIC all religious schools should be banned

[Letters]

it's not just Islam though, there are plenty of Catholic/Protestant schools in this country whcih tell impressionable young children that God definitely exists - when i was a kid we all sang hymns in assembly and repeated the Lord's prayer - i coudl even still repeat it to you now

that's indoctrination - AFAIC all religious schools should be banned

I'll be honest, I worry that we are indoctrinating the kids a bit, but don't all parents do that, up to a point? All parents pass on their beliefs and attitudes to their children - or attempt to.

We take the kids to church, they learn what we believe in Sunday School. But in school they're getting exposure to other religions - just today actually, the boy's class is visiting a mosque! And as the kids get older we'll encourage them to make their own decision about what to believe. Churches I've been in don't baptise children - we recognise that as a step someone takes if and when they're ready to.

Of course I'm going to tell my kids what I believe. I'm going to tell them I think it's true - as you will with your kids. So long as you balance that with their right to make up their own minds as they get older and develop more understanding then I think that's fine.

[WMUG]

when i was a kid we all sang hymns in assembly

I didn't know this was a thing until I was an adult because my school's version of that was singing songs from the music teacher's youth :lol:

[HCZ_Reborn]

it's not just Islam though, there are plenty of Catholic/Protestant schools in this country whcih tell impressionable young children that God definitely exists - when i was a kid we all sang hymns in assembly and repeated the Lord's prayer - i coudl even still repeat it to you now

that's indoctrination - AFAIC all religious schools should be banned

Im sorry but religious schools are not an example of how both faiths are just as bad when it comes to intolerance and pushing their beliefs on you. Neither are clergymen in the House of Lords. The intimidation and violence and emotional blackmail is not on the same level.

Look at the difference in their reaction to being criticised or mocked too. When the life of Brian came out you had the pythons agree to come on a show where aside from being patronised and lectured to by Malcolm Muggeridge like he was some kind of prep school headmaster there was no strong violent reaction and this was 1979. When Salman Rushdie authored The Satanic Verses which is similar to life of Brian a slapstick satirical story of a character similar to Mohamed without being Mohamed. The Ayatollah who had certainly never read the book (it was never translated into Farsi) took out a fatwah. Not just that but most of the Muslim community in the uk (which is Sunni not Shia) said they agreed with the fatwah and said Rushdie deserved to die for his blasphemy. A translator of the book into Japanese hirogama was murdered and over thirty years after the release of the book (ten of which Rushdie spent under police protection in hiding) he was attacked again by a religious fanatic.

Taking this “well they’re all bad actually” view is just cowardly. If progressive atheists can feel free to criticise Christianity but are scared of doing so with Islam you know there’s a clear disparity in consequence. Ive never had a Christian say I’m bigoted against their faith, let alone threaten my life. I have been threatened (albeit online which I don’t take seriously) by a devotee of the religion of peace.

The Catholic Church used to be the most violent, the most dogmatic, the most dangerous faith…probably up until 1962 I’d say. It’s now Islam….and it’s not close. I’m not after banning mosques any more than churches…I think a liberal society has to practice freedom of religion as well as secular values should free us from religion.

This will continue to be the case until we stand up for our values by refusing to tolerate this nonsense anymore. The hurt feelings of Muslims should not be our concern….and people who chant and hector outside schools if we show images of their prophet should be arrested for public disorder. We need to do more to clamp down on honour violence and grooming gangs.

We have hate speech laws but we never use it to clamp down on the disgusting rhetoric of imams. Prevent needs to stop having its hands tied by accusations of islamophobia when it deals with youngsters potentially being radicalised into jihad online.

Governments need to stop giving a platform to the Muslim council of Britain. It should also deport and deny entry to Wahhabist clerics from Saudi Arabia.

[Letters]

I didn't know this was a thing until I was an adult because my school's version of that was singing songs from the music teacher's youth :lol:

We used to sign hymns in primary school and then we got a new headmaster. He was brilliant, but suddenly we stopped singing hymns and it was ABBA songs :lol:
I didn't think much of it at the time, but looking back I guess Mr Charles was an atheist!

[Letters]

Im sorry but religious schools are not an example of how both faiths are just as bad when it comes to intolerance and pushing their beliefs on you.
I was going to add to my post - I think we (as in Christians) largely get this right where Muslims do not.
This is probably a stereotype, but I get the impression they don't exactly encourage their kids to find their own beliefs or question things.
We mostly do. I was talking to a girl at church recently (I say "girl", she's early 20s, but I'm old as the hills, so...).
She apparently stopped coming when she was about 10 and didn't want to any more. Then, later, she decided to come back.
Obviously I hope our kids will find faith as we have, but I see it as very much their decision.

[Mac76]

Im sorry but religious schools are not an example of how both faiths are just as bad when it comes to intolerance and pushing their beliefs on you.

Taking this “well they’re all bad actually” view is just cowardly.

i wasn't taking that line, just saying it's dangeorous to ignore the fact the all religions are trying to get you to some extent take up their beliefs - plus as you say Catholism has a pretty violent and intolerant history plus of course cases of abuse which go up to very recent times, if not the present day


if NQ is saying people with beliefs should just follow them quietly and not within institutions, or seek to indoctirnate others, then I've some agreement with that

and they should absolutely get the bishops out of the Lords, the idea that laws which govern all of us are influenced by such people is plain wrong

[Mac76]

I'll be honest, I worry that we are indoctrinating the kids a bit, but don't all parents do that, up to a point? All parents pass on their beliefs and attitudes to their children - or attempt to.

We take the kids to church, they learn what we believe in Sunday School. But in school they're getting exposure to other religions - just today actually, the boy's class is visiting a mosque! And as the kids get older we'll encourage them to make their own decision about what to believe. Churches I've been in don't baptise children - we recognise that as a step someone takes if and when they're ready to.

Of course I'm going to tell my kids what I believe. I'm going to tell them I think it's true - as you will with your kids. So long as you balance that with their right to make up their own minds as they get older and develop more understanding then I think that's fine.

all good and respect the honesty

the irony is that i know a few non-religious people with kids who even went to church in order to get their kids into their nearby Catholic school, simply because it had the best reputation, so it's all a bit messed up.

[HCZ_Reborn]

i wasn't taking that line, just saying it's dangeorous to ignore the fact the all religions are trying to get you to some extent take up their beliefs - plus as you say Catholism has a pretty violent and intolerant history plus of course cases of abuse which go up to very recent times, if not the present day


if NQ is saying people with beliefs should just follow them quietly and not within institutions, or seek to indoctirnate others, then I've some agreement with that

and they should absolutely get the bishops out of the Lords, the idea that laws which govern all of us are influenced by such people is plain wrong

We are talking about what happens in actuality. No one is denying that religion is based on proselytisation. I get that’s the point you’re making. The point I’m making is that in reality, Islam is the worst for it because of the way it’s prepared to use violence and intimidation in a way other faiths currently are not to instill acquiescence from non believers

[Mac76]

We are talking about what happens in actuality. No one is denying that religion is based on proselytisation. I get that’s the point you’re making. The point I’m making is that in reality, Islam is the worst for it because of the way it’s prepared to use violence and intimidation in a way other faiths currently are not to instill acquiescence from non believers

Sure, although even then it's important - as you sort of do - to point out there's Islam and Islam - the Wahabi variety pushed by the Suadis is particularly dangerous

btw I am the proud owner of an original copy of the Satanic Verses, published by 'The Consortium', so no one publisher was targeted by extremists.

[Letters]

i wasn't taking that line, just saying it's dangeorous to ignore the fact the all religions are trying to get you to some extent take up their beliefs
I suppose my question would be "what's wrong with that?".
I mean, if you believe something has eternal consequences - and the dude who said it did told you to tell others about it - then why wouldn't you do that?
The key thing to me is that you teach what you believe but leave it to the other person whether they accept it.
I generally don't involve myself in debates these days about "this sort of thing". I used to but I've learned that generally the people who seek out those debates are just looking for an argument rather than seeking the truth.

What do you make of Dawkins, out of interest? He seems pretty hell-bent (pun intended) on trying to stop people to believe in God.
Are you OK with that because you agree with his beliefs? I sometimes wonder about him - most people who tend towards atheism are happy to live and let live. They may think I believe a load of nonsense, but they're generally content to let me get on with it. I wonder what happened to him to make him so bitter about it. It's not enough for him that he doesn't believe, he doesn't think anyone else should either. To me that's the exact sort of indoctrination you're talking about.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Sure, although even then it's important - as you sort of do - to point out there's Islam and Islam - the Wahabi variety pushed by the Suadis is particularly dangerous

btw I am the proud owner of an original copy of the Satanic Verses, published by 'The Consortium', so no one publisher was targeted by extremists.

The Wahabi variety is Islam. The vast majority of the Muslim world is Sunni and that is Wahabist. The difference in degrees is on the more shallow end you have a conservative Islamic faith which believes a woman’s testimony in court is worth half that of a man. That believes that homosexuality deserves the death penalty as does apostasy. That teaches children even in African countries like Sudan where they’ve never even met Jews that Jews are the devil.

On the more extreme end you have Islamism (the desire for an Islamic state) and jihadism (prepared to engage in acts of war and terrorism to bring it about). Islam does not need to be either of these extremes to represent a very grievous threat to western society


Moderate Islam doesn’t exist, it hasn’t for decades. Do you get Muslim reformers? Yes but they are largely ostracised both by their own community and by mainstream media. Which on one hand does what you’re doing now and tries to minimise the extent to which Islam in its current form is utterly toxic, on the other hand willingly gave a platform to Anjem Choudhury, Roshan Salih and Dilly Hussein.

No but outside of WH Smith’s, no other book wholesaler would stock it. And vast numbers of Muslims in this community bought copies of the book just to burn them.

The fact is until this babyish behaviour is no longer tolerated either in the west or Muslim majority countries as well as an end to all the other barbaric practices prescribed by Islam…it stands head and shoulders as by the far the most pernicious faith in existence.

[Mac76]

I suppose my question would be "what's wrong with that?".
I mean, if you believe something has eternal consequences - and the dude who said it did told you to tell others about it - then why wouldn't you do that?
The key thing to me is that you teach what you believe but leave it to the other person whether they accept it.
I generally don't involve myself in debates these days about "this sort of thing". I used to but I've learned that generally the people who seek out those debates are just looking for an argument rather than seeking the truth.

What do you make of Dawkins, out of interest? He seems pretty hell-bent (pun intended) on trying to stop people to believe in God.
Are you OK with that because you agree with his beliefs? I sometimes wonder about him - most people who tend towards atheism are happy to live and let live. They may think I believe a load of nonsense, but they're generally content to let me get on with it. I wonder what happened to him to make him so bitter about it. It's not enough for him that he doesn't believe, he doesn't think anyone else should either. To me that's the exact sort of indoctrination you're talking about.

interesting that you say Dawkins has 'beliefs'

He has a scientific and academic background so is a good example of practising what the tweet you quoted said about sticking to evidence

Calling what he says 'beliefs' is like those people who say climate change is a 'belief' when in fact it is scientifically proven to any logical person's satisfaction

It's an attempt to bring atheists and those who espouse climate science down to the level of 'believers', in an attempt to undermine their arguments

can i prove god doesn't exist? i guess not although in the 100% absence of any proof otherwise i think that in itself is significant

re your point though, I think Dawkins' frustration is with religion having an effect on people's thinking and who they listen to about imporant issues and moral positions, he'd rather people were guided by facts and evidence - it concerns me too

[HCZ_Reborn]

interesting that you say Dawkins has 'beliefs'

He has a scientific and academic background so is a good example of practising what the tweet you quoted said about sticking to evidence

Calling what he says 'beliefs' is like those people who say climate change is a 'belief' when in fact it is scientifically proven to any logical person's satisfaction

It's an attempt to bring atheists and those who espouse climate science down to the level of 'believers', in an attempt to undermine their arguments

can i prove god doesn't exist? i guess not although in the 100% absence of any proof otherwise i think that in itself is significant

re your point though, I think Dawkins' frustration is with religion having an effect on people's thinking and who they listen to about imporant issues and moral positions, he'd rather people were guided by facts and evidence - it concerns me too

I have to challenge that, apart from anything the existence or non existence of God is unfalsifiable. Where as Climate change is a theory…in that there is finite evidence that can either prove or disprove it. Dawkins uses what he knows about science to hypothesise. Plus Even Darwinism does not disprove God’s existence (it never sets out to do so) it’s just that Evolution and natural selection have rendered the Christian creationist explanation meaningless.

But then scientific understanding is always subject to change, Darwinism is accepted but so was a Geocentric model of the universe which itself superseded the Heliocentric model.

So although Dawkins isn’t relying on guesswork and revealed truth….he’s still operating from belief.

[HCZ_Reborn]

To be guided by facts and evidence is in itself a bit of a wooly statement. Facts and evidence can tell you what’s happening it’s not necessarily any good at determining a solution.

You mention climate change for example, looking past those who either conveniently believe it a myth or take a contrarian approach.

This does nothing to stop the rise of Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil activists who take a fanatical stance and reveal that they have the answer for how human civilisation should respond to this. You can say they have scientific backing but they don’t, scientists deal with fact and evidence which again doesn’t tell you how to deal with something.


There’s no consensus even amongst a small group of misfits like us. I for example think alternative energy is a nonsense and is dependent on where you live and the ephemeral weather conditions for how much practical application it can have. And think apocalyptic handwringing and scare stories based on past events have ordinary ignorant people scared, despite it being fairly obvious the answer is short term use of nuclear fission and funding towards the fusion project as being the only realistic way forward.

Also think of what a vapid and ultimately meaningless term Follow the Science was with Covid.

[Letters]

interesting that you say Dawkins has 'beliefs'
HCZ has dealt with some of this but of course he has beliefs.
He will claim they are based on evidence, I'd say the same about my religious beliefs. I'll come back to that.
Evolution is very well evidenced but it's pretty arrogant of us to think that current scientific theories are "correct" when historically scientific theories have been repeatedly replaced by better ones as new evidence emerges. HCZ mentions geocentricism, in the 20th century Einstein transformed our understanding of gravity.

I roll my eyes a bit at my father in law who is on some young earth creationist FB group and occasionally shares some utter nonsense on there. I actually did a sermon at my church on science and Christianity, it's a subject I believe a lot of Christians get wrong so I thought it needed addressing. The headline is I don't see science and Christianity as being in opposition to one another, more complimentary. "Science asks how, religion asks why" is simplistic. Sometimes they both ask "how", but in different ways. As a Christian I believe that God created the universe. Science gives me an insight into some of the detail and mechanisms behind that. I don't see those two things as a contradiction.
What science will never do is answer questions about whether there's life after death in any sense or whether there's a purpose to life. Those questions are just not in the scope of science.

I can't prove God exists, no-one can prove He doesn't. But I do believe my faith is evidence based. There's good evidence that Jesus existed, for example. The places He taught in exist, you can still visit them today. If the Bible talked about someone who there's no evidence outside the Bible even existed, and talked about places which don't exist then that would be a big red flag. Then there's the more personal level of evidence - one example, I remember at church one time two separate people said they felt prompted to tell me I should get prayer about something. I don't believe those two people spoke to each other or colluded and it was such a niche thing I don't believe it was a coincidence. It could have been of course, but I regularly hear other people at church tell me about things they've experienced and it builds my faith. I may be wrong of course, but I don't believe my faith in blind. Which brings me on to...


re your point though, I think Dawkins' frustration is with religion having an effect on people's thinking and who they listen to about important issues and moral positions, he'd rather people were guided by facts and evidence - it concerns me too
I sympathise with some of that frustration, I mentioned my father in law above. I get annoyed by Christians who I think have silly views, taking parts of the Bible as literal scientific truth when to me they're clearly poetic. I think it makes us look silly. But I would note this - the "post truth" world we now live in has arisen at a time when the country has got less religious. So religious thinking hasn't been replaced by clear, logical thought (not that I think you have to make a choice between those two things!).

[WMUG]

I remember at church one time two separate people said they felt prompted to tell me I should get prayer about something. I don't believe those two people spoke to each other or colluded and it was such a niche thing I don't believe it was a coincidence.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZeWPScnolo

;)

[Letters]

I like Tim Minchin a lot. Seen him live once, actually. Very talented guy.
But I think he's one of those people who treats faith as an intellectual exercise, maybe even thinks he's a bit too clever to believe all this God nonsense. I don't think one should blindly believe things either but there is a middle ground.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmpP73-SHPQ

To respond to the song - yeah, but as I said when you keep on hearing these stories...

[IBK]

HCZ has dealt with some of this but of course he has beliefs.
He will claim they are based on evidence, I'd say the same about my religious beliefs. I'll come back to that.
Evolution is very well evidenced but it's pretty arrogant of us to think that current scientific theories are "correct" when historically scientific theories have been repeatedly replaced by better ones as new evidence emerges. HCZ mentions geocentricism, in the 20th century Einstein transformed our understanding of gravity.

I roll my eyes a bit at my father in law who is on some young earth creationist FB group and occasionally shares some utter nonsense on there. I actually did a sermon at my church on science and Christianity, it's a subject I believe a lot of Christians get wrong so I thought it needed addressing. The headline is I don't see science and Christianity as being in opposition to one another, more complimentary. "Science asks how, religion asks why" is simplistic. Sometimes they both ask "how", but in different ways. As a Christian I believe that God created the universe. Science gives me an insight into some of the detail and mechanisms behind that. I don't see those two things as a contradiction.
What science will never do is answer questions about whether there's life after death in any sense or whether there's a purpose to life. Those questions are just not in the scope of science.

I can't prove God exists, no-one can prove He doesn't. But I do believe my faith is evidence based. There's good evidence that Jesus existed, for example. The places He taught in exist, you can still visit them today. If the Bible talked about someone who there's no evidence outside the Bible even existed, and talked about places which don't exist then that would be a big red flag. Then there's the more personal level of evidence - one example, I remember at church one time two separate people said they felt prompted to tell me I should get prayer about something. I don't believe those two people spoke to each other or colluded and it was such a niche thing I don't believe it was a coincidence. It could have been of course, but I regularly hear other people at church tell me about things they've experienced and it builds my faith. I may be wrong of course, but I don't believe my faith in blind. Which brings me on to...


I sympathise with some of that frustration, I mentioned my father in law above. I get annoyed by Christians who I think have silly views, taking parts of the Bible as literal scientific truth when to me they're clearly poetic. I think it makes us look silly. But I would note this - the "post truth" world we now live in has arisen at a time when the country has got less religious. So religious thinking hasn't been replaced by clear, logical thought (not that I think you have to make a choice between those two things!).

:gp: Particularly the bold part. Some people have a blind 'faith' in science - but science itself is not a 'truth'. In a couple of centuries time (if humanity has not wiped itself out by then - or suffered a new dark age) what many people regard as absolutes now will be proven to be mistaken or misconceived.

For me, religion in essence (spirituality?) is an attempt to make sense of the world and ourselves. Neither the Bible or the Koran are intended to be literal - although some of the messages in both (and in many other religions) speak to the essence of what it means to be human, and offer moral guidance that is important for a proper functioning society.

Your points on science and religion being complimentary are interesting. I see an element of philosophy in religion that secular societies tend to ignore. Perhaps both are involved in searching for truth - but in different ways.

[Mac76]

Some people have a blind 'faith' in science - but science itself is not a 'truth'. In a couple of centuries time (if humanity has not wiped itself out by then - or suffered a new dark age) what many people regard as absolutes now will be proven to be mistaken or misconceived.


but it's the best we've got and I would rather use it (without as you say placing completely blind trust in it) than what is ultimately superstition as a basis for guiding decisions

[Letters]

The best we've got for what? It depends what you're trying to do.
When it comes to decisions about, say, Covid, then of course you should use science and data.
When it comes to more a personal journey, finding purpose in life, I don't think it's a particularly useful tool.

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.
Each can bring the other into a wider world, a world where both may flourish."
- Pope John Paul II

I quoted this in the aforementioned sermon. Not generally a big fan of popes, but I like this quote a lot.

[The Wengerbabies]

but it's the best we've got and I would rather use it (without as you say placing completely blind trust in it) than what is ultimately superstition as a basis for guiding decisions

Any moral scientist will tell you, you can't trust scientists. As a scientist myself ,having worked at leading research universities, I can tell you first hand they'll say anything to get the funding they want/need for their own projects, usually nothing to do with the narrative the government are trying to push.

[WMUG]

Not generally a big fan of popes.

Ooh, I know a song about that!

[Letters]

:lol:

[Letters]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68357976

:(

:rose:

Genuinely a bit sad about this one. He didn't do anything else of note (that I've seen, anyway). But he was great in The Office.

[Mac76]

obvs sorry if someone has passed away (unless it's Trump, Johnson or Farage in which case I'm having a party), but I've never heard of him and never liked the Office - Gervais is a fat self-satisfied smug git who i've never found remotely amusing

[Mac76]

Anyway i came on here to say if anyone's at a loose end this post and comments (or the ones near the top anyway) are quite amusing: https://twitter.com/DonnieDoesWorld/status/1760061843383455974

[HCZ_Reborn]

obvs sorry if someone has passed away (unless it's Trump, Johnson or Farage in which case I'm having a party), but I've never heard of him and never liked the Office - Gervais is a fat self-satisfied smug git who i've never found remotely amusing

Farage or Johnson?. Johnson is no longer prime minister so I don’t care about him either way now and can you imagine what would have happened if he’d died from Covid in 2020?…guy would have become a fallen hero.

Equally with Farage I don’t get it, he really isn’t actually that influential in reality. He is charismatic and intelligent even if he’s a totally cynical and empty individual….but even amongst leave voters he’s absolute marmite.

Trump? I just want him to go away….hes more of a headache than anything. Dont get me wrong, won’t mourn any of them just won’t care one way or the other.


I only wish death on those who have brought real suffering on others


Mugabe, Al-Megrahi, Ratzinger, Gaddafi and Saddam….i had a bit of a fist pump when these died


I’ll be reasonably content when Putin and Xi and Sinwar and Assad all die (don’t care how they die, it’s not about making them suffer it’s about removing them from the world). There’s probably more but I can’t think at the moment.

[Letters]

I actually like Johnson - in the sense that he's entertaining, and in the right context can be fun to watch. His hosting of HIGNFY springs to mind, as does the "wiff-waff" speech before the 2012 Olympics. I just don't want him in any position of power.

Oh, and Keith from the office - not one of the really main roles but a bit of a fan favourite. Never did anything of note and was big as a house which probably contributed to his early demise, but 50 is no age. So :rose:

[HCZ_Reborn]

I actually like Johnson - in the sense that he's entertaining, and in the right context can be fun to watch. His hosting of HIGNFY springs to mind, as does the "wiff-waff" speech before the 2012 Olympics. I just don't want him in any position of power.

Oh, and Keith from the office - not one of the really main roles but a bit of a fan favourite. Never did anything of note and was big as a house which probably contributed to his early demise, but 50 is no age. So :rose:

Like Farage…Johnson is charismatic. But on top was witty as well


What I strongly dislike about him is that he had the ability and intelligence to be more than what he is. But his natural inclination was always to be lazy, cynical and entitled. He was fine as mayor of london because he just got his SPADS to do anything of substance. I don’t mind if someone thinks they can get away with doing things other people can’t, as long as they aren’t in a job as important as prime minister.


Never watched the Office so have no frame of reference for this Keith character, but yeah 50 is no age.

[Letters]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTF_RJx8g2w

:lol:

[Letters]

What I strongly dislike about him is that he had the ability and intelligence to be more than what he is. But his natural inclination was always to be lazy, cynical and entitled.
It's not entirely his fault. He was brought up with privilege and believing he was entitled to rule and that the rules don't apply to him. Depressingly, he has been proven right. But he's extremely bright and I agree that his laziness is irksome. But as an occasional TV guest he's entertaining, I just wish he'd stayed there.

[The Wengerbabies]

Johnson is a cunt. I'll admit I enjoyed him before he became PM but he was an absolute corrupt failure. Covid and Brexit he completely botched, worst PM of my lifetime and it's not even close.

He criticised Tucker for the Putin interview and is now demanding $1million in cash, gold, or bitcoin to rebuke claims made against him, who is the shady one?

He's supposed to be getting a GB News show, I like the channel in general but won't watch that charlatan.

And to think some Tories think bringing him back is the answer. He should be nowhere near power ever again.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if as public opinion continues to shift against Brexit he comes back to lead a rejoin campaign. He's a self serving narcissist who never believed in Brexit and only used it to further his personal political ambition, I can absolutely see him doing so again.

[Letters]

Hard to argue with any of that tbf

[WMUG]

Though I wouldn't be surprised if as public opinion continues to shift against Brexit he comes back to lead a rejoin campaign. He's a self serving narcissist who never believed in Brexit and only used it to further his personal political ambition, I can absolutely see him doing so again.

Interesting thought.

I'd say it's a toss up between whether he's intelligent enough to realise that that will just make everyone hate him. The remaining Brexiteers who still love him will call him a traitor, not without justification, and the remainers/rejoiners will know precisely what he's doing and tell him to fuck right off.

I think he probably is, but I may be wrong about that.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Interesting thought.

I'd say it's a toss up between whether he's intelligent enough to realise that that will just make everyone hate him. The remaining Brexiteers who still love him will call him a traitor, not without justification, and the remainers/rejoiners will know precisely what he's doing and tell him to fuck right off.

I think he probably is, but I may be wrong about that.


I’m not at all convinced that there is a majority for rejoin. A lot of the responses in polling are people who say Brexit is making things worse, Brexit has been botched by politicians etc but direct questions about rejoining tend to be at best indifferent. I’m not saying it won’t change (although I don’t think it will) but I think it’s largely academic….the EU won’t survive in its current form. It’s completely reliant on German manufacturing which in turn relies on Russian energy. The legacy of Ostpolitik :haha:

I voted Remain because I didn’t think anything was to be gained by leaving, but rejoining is an entirely different proposition and one I would not vote for.

[WMUG]

To clarify, by "remaining brexiteers who still love him," I meant people who both still support Brexit and still love Johnson. Not that people who support Brexit or would vote to stay out are a small number.

[HCZ_Reborn]

To clarify, by "remaining brexiteers who still love him," I meant people who both still support Brexit and still love Johnson. Not that people who support Brexit or would vote to stay out are a small number.

In fairness my response should have been to the conspiracy theorist who stated about public opinion turning against Brexit

Which it is in a way, but it’s not the same as a desire to rejoin.

[Letters]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/987347/brexit-opinion-poll/

[The Wengerbabies]

In fairness my response should have been to the conspiracy theorist who stated about public opinion turning against Brexit

Which it is in a way, but it’s not the same as a desire to rejoin.

The point wasn't so much about rejoining the point was Johnson is a narcissist with no political convictions other than what will advance himself, taking and running with a completely opposing position to gain power again is something I can see him doing.

[The Wengerbabies]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/987347/brexit-opinion-poll/

Yeah but as HCZ says thinking leaving was wrong does not necessarily translate to support for rejoin, especially when the € issue comes up.

[The Wengerbabies]

Hard to argue with any of that tbf



He's supposed to be getting a GB News show, I like the channel in general but won't watch that charlatan.
.

I'm surprised you like GB News tbh.

[Letters]

Yeah but as HCZ says thinking leaving was wrong does not necessarily translate to support for rejoin, especially when the € issue comes up.

It doesn't, and it's an interesting distinction.
But it always seemed bonkers to me that we as a country would make a policy decision the effects of which (for good or ill) will last generations based on a one off snapshot of public option (and, let's face it, a very poorly educated public). Especially on an issue where the result was so close and on another day we'd probably have got a different result. Opinion was swinging all over the place at the time.

[Letters]

I'm surprised you like GB News tbh.

I wouldn't argue with the fact that you do ;)

[The Wengerbabies]

It doesn't, and it's an interesting distinction.
But it always seemed bonkers to me that we as a country would make a policy decision the effects of which (for good or ill) will last generations based on a one off snapshot of public option (and, let's face it, a very poorly educated public). Especially on an issue where the result was so close and on another day we'd probably have got a different result. Opinion was swinging all over the place at the time.

Indeed. The vote doesn't seem that long ago but come summer no one 26 or under would have even had a say on a decision that has and will continue to define their lives. Not to mention how many leave voters are now dead, simply excluding them and not accounting for the <26 and you'd still likely get a different result.

Really should have been a super-majority.

[HCZ_Reborn]

It doesn't, and it's an interesting distinction.
But it always seemed bonkers to me that we as a country would make a policy decision the effects of which (for good or ill) will last generations based on a one off snapshot of public option (and, let's face it, a very poorly educated public). Especially on an issue where the result was so close and on another day we'd probably have got a different result. Opinion was swinging all over the place at the time.

Government was never legally bound to implement the results of the referendum. It was essentially a plebiscite designed to gather public opinion with the promise that they would implement the decision. This is not me saying they should have ignored the result, no government could or should have done any such thing. But it was MPs voting in the commons to trigger Article 50 that started Brexit.
Plus In 2017 a majority of the population voted for parties that promised to uphold the referendum, and in 2019 the Tories won a commons majority on an election that was held as a de-facto referendum on its withdrawal agreement, so it’s probably fair to say Brexit was more than just a one off snapshot of public opinion.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Indeed. The vote doesn't seem that long ago but come summer no one 26 or under would have even had a say on a decision that has and will continue to define their lives. Not to mention how many leave voters are now dead, simply excluding them and not accounting for the <26 and you'd still likely get a different result.

Really should have been a super-majority.


Surely that would only work if it worked both ways. A super majority for change but a basic majority for the status quo hardly seems fair

[Letters]

Plus In 2017 a majority of the population voted for parties that promised to uphold the referendum, and in 2019 the Tories won a commons majority on an election that was held as a de-facto referendum on its withdrawal agreement, so it’s probably fair to say Brexit was more than just a one off snapshot of public opinion.
That's a bit of a stretch. You can't sensibly compare a referendum on a single issue with an election where multiple issues are at hand. Of course the referendum, or the aftermath of it, dominated the discussions in 2019. But all Boris said in 2019 was that he'd "get Brexit done". By that point pretty much everyone was sick of it and I don't think anyone would have voted for a party who were saying they'd disregard the referendum result. Only extreme pro-Europe parties who had no chance of getting in and thus could say what they liked were promising that.

[HCZ_Reborn]

That's a bit of a stretch. You can't sensibly compare a referendum on a single issue with an election where multiple issues are at hand. Of course the referendum, or the aftermath of it, dominated the discussions in 2019. But all Boris said in 2019 was that he'd "get Brexit done". By that point pretty much everyone was sick of it and I don't think anyone would have voted for a party who were saying they'd disregard the referendum result. Only extreme pro-Europe parties who had no chance of getting in and thus could say what they liked were promising that.

Labour promised a second referendum, whichever way that would have worked out would have disregarded the original referendum result. 2017 and 2019 were explicitly Brexit elections, May held the election in 2017 to get the majority she wanted in order to get her Brexit deal through. 2019 as I stated was a de-facto referendum on the withdrawal agreement, by which the choice to the country was either a Tory majority under Johnson or a coalition under Corbyn. Both choices were totally unpalatable to me so I chose not to vote. And whether the voters motivation for giving the Tories a majority to pass the withdrawal bill…that’s what they did…three years after being offered a chance to change their mind.

[IBK]

Government was never legally bound to implement the results of the referendum. It was essentially a plebiscite designed to gather public opinion with the promise that they would implement the decision. This is not me saying they should have ignored the result, no government could or should have done any such thing. But it was MPs voting in the commons to trigger Article 50 that started Brexit.
Plus In 2017 a majority of the population voted for parties that promised to uphold the referendum, and in 2019 the Tories won a commons majority on an election that was held as a de-facto referendum on its withdrawal agreement, so it’s probably fair to say Brexit was more than just a one off snapshot of public opinion.

It was also a Tory tactic to deal with the Euro sceptics in their own party, that backfired badly because the remainers (most of all Cameron) were criminally complacent about what they all assumed would be a forgone conclusion in favour of staying in the EU. As usual there was no seeming awareness that Brexit was an empty promise of better days for the UK that unrelated grievances would coalesce around. Western democracy is increasingly moribund as an effective way of governing countries in the best interests of their populations because there is a wholesale lack of either understanding as to how to solve the problems facing us or willingness to take (or even explain) necessary decisions for long term benefit. Instead government policy is shaped almost entirely by what politicians think will keep themselves in power - following rather than directing an uninformed voting public...

[Letters]

Labour promised a second referendum, whichever way that would have worked out would have disregarded the original referendum result. 2017 and 2019 were explicitly Brexit elections, May held the election in 2017 to get the majority she wanted in order to get her Brexit deal through. 2019 as I stated was a de-facto referendum on the withdrawal agreement, by which the choice to the country was either a Tory majority under Johnson or a coalition under Corbyn. Both choices were totally unpalatable to me so I chose not to vote. And whether the voters motivation for giving the Tories a majority to pass the withdrawal bill…that’s what they did…three years after being offered a chance to change their mind.
Corbyn was basically unelectable. "The people" rejecting him is not an endorsement of Johnson or his Brexit plans.

[The Wengerbabies]

Surely that would only work if it worked both ways. A super majority for change but a basic majority for the status quo hardly seems fair

No a super-majority to undertake a huge change is reasonable, maintaining the status quo shouldn't require overwhelming consent.


It was also a Tory tactic to deal with the Euro sceptics in their own party, that backfired badly because the remainers (most of all Cameron) were criminally complacent about what they all assumed would be a forgone conclusion in favour of staying in the EU..
Cameron was definitly part of the problem. For a lot of people it was just a protest vote against the government, they really had no idea what they were voting for just to "give the Tories a bloody nose"


Corbyn was basically unelectable. "The people" rejecting him is not an endorsement of Johnson or his Brexit plans.
Pro-2nd ref parties actually got more votes then Johnson, it was just split. I'd also wager a lot of remain voting blue wall constituencies would have voted LD had they not been more fearful of Corbyn than Brexit. Johnson was lucky Corbyn was so bad.

[Letters]

They'll be dancing in the streets of The Wengerbabies' house tonight.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68378818

[HCZ_Reborn]

They'll be dancing in the streets of The Wengerbabies' house tonight.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68378818

I was originally of the view that it was irresponsible to revoke her citizenship, not out of any concern for her but because I think Britain shouldn’t be making other people responsible for its garbage.

The problem is though if she was brought back here it would be impossible to prosecute her because the crimes were extra territorial and because there’s almost no one alive left who could testify as to what she did or didn’t do.

It’s far from ideal but those who predictably cry racism also conveniently forget that the same treatment was meted out to Jack Letts. Basically because Begum is a dual national we can do what we’ve done, unfortunately for her Bangladesh takes a very dim view on terrorism and almost certainly would indict her and pass down a death sentence.

Andrew Drury, a journalist who has met her on several occasions in the refugee camp in Syria has stated that the contrition she shows on air is completely feigned. Let her rot in one of Assad’s jails for all I care.

[Marc Overmars]

To be honest she’s come across as very insincere from the start. She can do one. Frankly she should count herself lucky anyway because it would be near enough impossible for her to reintegrate into society here. I’d give it a week tops before someone recognised her and took matters into their own hands.

[Mac76]

No a super-majority to undertake a huge change is reasonable, maintaining the status quo shouldn't require overwhelming consent.


Cameron was definitly part of the problem. For a lot of people it was just a protest vote against the government, they really had no idea what they were voting for just to "give the Tories a bloody nose"


Pro-2nd ref parties actually got more votes then Johnson, it was just split. I'd also wager a lot of remain voting blue wall constituencies would have voted LD had they not been more fearful of Corbyn than Brexit. Johnson was lucky Corbyn was so bad.

got to say i agree with every word of that

[HCZ_Reborn]

got to say i agree with every word of that

Bit too simplistic an explanation in my view. It overlooks the fact that the coal and steel community formed by the Treaty of Rome was signed up to by countries in Europe because they’d spent centuries going to war with each other. Britain as a more remote island on the continent was more removed. Yes we’d gone to war in Crimea, the Peninsular wars etc in the past 100-150 years but far more few and far between than on the rest the continent plus France and yes Germany had suffered far more in terms of casualties and economic hardship in the Second World War than us. Therefore economic cooperation was seen as a way of making sure it never happened again, with Britain which was going through a decline in its global influence it was more navel gazing and although MacMillan wanted us to join…there was no great enthusiasm in the country as a whole.

Also you simply can’t ignore a difference in culture as a long standing reason for indifference to the European Union. We have far more in common for obvious reasons with the Anglosphere countries

Do I think that it was never considered a big issue for most people other than a few years prior to 2016 ? Yeah that’s self evident in polling. But what’s equally self evident is that the anti EU message that people like Farage promoted only worked because people were receptive to it…they were fed up with things economically and with immigration. When James Goldsmith and his Referendum party had tried to gin up support for leaving twenty years previous he’d got nowhere.

So basically the EU has never been particularly loved by people in this country to begin with. And politicians of both parties played on this, the Lisbon Treaty was signed behind closed doors by Brown (betraying the fact that privately politicians were more pro EU than they claimed to be in public)

None of this particularly matters to me, the only thing I was against was the single currency…and if people understand anything about what happened with Greece, they would be too.

[HCZ_Reborn]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68386864

Interesting that the cause of death was drowning, yeah obviously he was found in the Thames but I’d have assumed that he ended up in the river post mortem. That someone protecting him chucked him in the river after he succumbed to his injuries.

Now the only thing to determine is whether he jumped or was pushed. Dont get me wrong a creature like that…better off dead. But would help to know if we have a potential murder here

[The Wengerbabies]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68386864

Interesting that the cause of death was drowning, yeah obviously he was found in the Thames but I’d have assumed that he ended up in the river post mortem. That someone protecting him chucked him in the river after he succumbed to his injuries.

Now the only thing to determine is whether he jumped or was pushed. Dont get me wrong a creature like that…better off dead. But would help to know if we have a potential murder here



Was he vaxxed?

[The Wengerbabies]

unfortunately for her Bangladesh takes a very dim view on terrorism and almost certainly would indict her and pass down a death sentence.


https://media1.tenor.com/m/nwoJ4BS0XHYAAAAC/oh-no-anyway.gif

She can always try her luck on a dinghy come back to the UK and get a taxpayer funded hotel.

[The Wengerbabies]

it would be near enough impossible for her to reintegrate into society here. I’d give it a week tops before someone recognised her and took matters into their own hands.

Sadly no. The ghettos are all over the place now, she'd fine a community willing to accept her with open arms.

[The Wengerbabies]

Anyone see that US Airmen self-immolate? What is wrong with some people?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GHN8c5wWoAACbH-?format=jpg&name=900x900

[HCZ_Reborn]

Anyone see that US Airmen self-immolate? What is wrong with some people?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GHN8c5wWoAACbH-?format=jpg&name=900x900

Reminded of A-Level History which looked at the Vietnam war. And this Buddhist Monk who set fire to himself in protest at th government of South Vietnam and its repressive policies towards critics and its overt religious hostility towards non Catholics . Madame Nhu who was the sister in law of Diem the president, and was hated by the Americans because she was forever running her mouth, inflaming tension and it was felt creating more sympathy towards the communist north said of this incident

“If the Buddhists want a barbecue, we are only too happy to supply the petrol and the matches”


Her husband and brother in law were murdered with the complicity of the CIA a few months later. Even Diem had asked her to shut up on more than one occasion….and basically lived in comfortable exile (makes you wonder if she came out with this shit deliberately :lol:


I guess my point is, probably best no- one in the Israeli government attempts to make a similarly obnoxious remark

[Letters]

Reminded of A-Level History which looked at the Vietnam war.

I'm in Hanoi at the moment with work. Off to visit a couple of our businesses to understand what they do and how our systems work for them - or don't,
Fun fact: over here they call it the American war.

Getting here was a pain in the hole. 24 hours door to door - 3 hour layover in Shanghai. And the film selection on the first flight was bloody rubbish. See Film thread for further details.

[WMUG]

I'm in Hanoi at the moment with work. Off to visit a couple of our businesses to understand what they do and how our systems work for them - or don't,
Fun fact: over here they call it the American war.

Getting here was a pain in the hole. 24 hours door to door - 3 hour layover in Shanghai. And the film selection on the first flight was bloody rubbish. See Film thread for further details.

Who in 2024 is still relying on in-flight entertainment? :lol:

[Letters]

Who in 2024 is still relying on in-flight entertainment? :lol:

Most people seemed to be.
Did Daddy get you a tablet and load it up with "content"?
To be fair, the films these days are usually pretty good. But I flew with some Chinese airline so a lot of the content was geared to that region.

[HCZ_Reborn]

I'm in Hanoi at the moment with work. Off to visit a couple of our businesses to understand what they do and how our systems work for them - or don't,
Fun fact: over here they call it the American war.

Getting here was a pain in the hole. 24 hours door to door - 3 hour layover in Shanghai. And the film selection on the first flight was bloody rubbish. See Film thread for further details.

Fun fact: Vietnam describes itself as a one party socialist republic (Communist dictatorship) but given that its open to foreign market places makes it about as communist as PRC.

To be technical, Vietnam was a French and then American war. Lyndon Johnson tried to get Britain involved but Wilson told him where to go. One western war there absolutely was no justification for, as far as I could see there was no Soviet involvement like with Cuba, it had overthrown French colonial rule and the communist insurgency of Ho-Chi Minh was largely welcomed by people in both south and north Vietnam. Were the Vietcong ruthless vicious bastards? Yes but there’s no argument about protecting the Vietnamese from tyranny.

Silly pointless war that Nixon kept going to get himself elected.

Though of course if you want to see real misery you’d have to travel over the border to Cambodia. Though that said, Vietnam, Myanmar and Cambodia all equally involved in human trafficking

[HCZ_Reborn]

Most people seemed to be.
Did Daddy get you a tablet and load it up with "content"?
To be fair, the films these days are usually pretty good. But I flew with some Chinese airline so a lot of the content was geared to that region.

No Winnie the Pooh then?

[Letters]

They did have one of the Puss in Boots movies from the Shrek world. I demured.
"Mr Bean's Holiday" was listed under "Classics", we'll have to agree to disagree about that, Eastern China Airlines.

Also, now I'm over here YouTube is showing me a load of Asian shit as recommendations. This is why AI isn't ready to take over the world, the algorithms are so blunt at the moment.

Also, had pretty passable Pho and a Coke this evening at a restaurant near the hotel. That'll be £5 please! Poverty :bow:

[Letters]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-68421131

:lol:

[Mac76]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-68421131

:lol:

I think that needs to filed under "what could possibly go wrong...?" :lol:

[Mac76]

They did have one of the Puss in Boots movies from the Shrek world. I demured.
"Mr Bean's Holiday" was listed under "Classics", we'll have to agree to disagree about that, Eastern China Airlines.

Also, now I'm over here YouTube is showing me a load of Asian shit as recommendations. This is why AI isn't ready to take over the world, the algorithms are so blunt at the moment.

Also, had pretty passable Pho and a Coke this evening at a restaurant near the hotel. That'll be £5 please! Poverty :bow:

I'd take Puss in Boots over Bean 100 times over, the Shrek moveis are designed for both kids and adults whereas Bean is devised for total morons with an IQ of 7

[Letters]

I'd take Puss in Boots over Bean 100 times over, the Shrek moveis are designed for both kids and adults whereas Bean is devised for total morons with an IQ of 7

I didn't know you liked Mr Bean. ##

:run:

[Mac76]

I didn't know you liked Mr Bean. ##

:run:

ha...ha...ha... :rolleyes: :lol:

[Letters]

No, but srsly, you are correct. Mr Bean is just purile nonsense for kids and adults of...limited ability.
But it's made Atkinson a pile of money, so I can see why he's milked it.

[HCZ_Reborn]

No, but srsly, you are correct. Mr Bean is just purile nonsense for kids and adults of...limited ability.
But it's made Atkinson a pile of money, so I can see why he's milked it.

Don’t ask me why but it’s very popular in the Middle East

I suppose we’ve never really gone in for slapstick as much as America

Benny Hill and Monty Python was the nearest equivalent but that was just one element of their overall act

[Niall_Quinn]

Jesus. The reality that you have time to type all this shit out. There's stuff going on people! Engage.

[HCZ_Reborn]

The Kraken awakes

Tell me, when you’re instructing people to engage with whatever it is, are you actually being serious. Or is getting a response the only dopamine hit you’re able to get now that you’ve presumably become totally desensitised to the effects of whiskey.

[Niall_Quinn]

The Kraken awakes

Tell me, when you’re instructing people to engage with whatever it is, are you actually being serious. Or is getting a response the only dopamine hit you’re able to get now that you’ve presumably become totally desensitised to the effects of whiskey.

Yeah, My Here Every Day. I get a dopamine hit every month. Are you listening to yourself? Any self awareness there?

[HCZ_Reborn]

Yeah, My Here Every Day. I get a dopamine hit every month. Are you listening to yourself? Any self awareness there?

I don’t know. I’m not the one who seemingly gets highly agitated because a bunch of middle aged men don’t see the world how I think they should. I’m as argumentative as the next guy, but I don’t scoff at people for discussing triviality because I think I can recruit crusaders in my battle against the globalists.

I can be accused of coming here for many reasons, recruitment probably isn’t going to be one of those things.


But what I was driving at is, are you really as utterly miserable as you come across or is it a persona you adopt for here?

[Niall_Quinn]

I don’t know. I’m not the one who seemingly gets highly agitated because a bunch of middle aged men don’t see the world how I think they should. I’m as argumentative as the next guy, but I don’t scoff at people for discussing triviality because I think I can recruit crusaders in my battle against the globalists.

I can be accused of coming here for many reasons, recruitment probably isn’t going to be one of those things.


But what I was driving at is, are you really as utterly miserable as you come across or is it a persona you adopt for here?

TBH, that's not the main problem. I think it's stupid to be wasting time, but its a free world (for now). The big problem I suffer with is wondering how the brain of an individual who even THINKS about this shit operates. And then - realising they are entitled to vote and have children. It's horrifying.

[Niall_Quinn]

£30mill to protect politicians from the people? Boo. Why can't we put up a 30 mill prize for whoever get the high score wiping them out? That would be money well spent. No joking aside, don't they even wonder WHY they need police thugs to protect them, if they are "public servants"? Doesn't make the slightest sense, does it? It's almost as if they are lying cunts.

[Letters]

I think it's stupid to be wasting time
I have explained this. This place - and particularly this thread - is in part a distraction from the more serious stuff going on in the world. A distraction I'd suggest that everyone needs. Railing against it is like going to Disneyland and moaning about all the people having fun and not doing anything about the Middle East. That's not why they are there.


but its a free world (for now).
Ah yes, just for now. When are the army arriving again? They seem to be a few years late.
Dude. Come on. We've been through this plenty of times. All the hysterical predictions you made about the increasing restrictions to our liberty have failed to materialise. In fact the complete opposite happened. Organisations with a certain agenda will tell us that our liberties are being eroded year on year but is that the reality? What freedoms do we no longer have? The right to protest? You'll have to tell the marches for Palestine that, a mate of mine has been on a few and he doesn't seem to have been carted off to the gulag just yet. What exactly is it that we're no longer free to do than we once could?


The big problem I suffer with is wondering how the brain of an individual who even THINKS about this shit operates. And then - realising they are entitled to vote and have children. It's horrifying.

It's horrifying that people enjoy talking about nonsense and trivia rather than incessantly dwelling on the "important matters of the day"?
Is it? I mean, isn't that important for mental health? This is a football forum - isn't that what football is? A distraction from "real life"?
Holy shit, if I spent all my time dwelling on the "bad things" going on in the world then I'd go mad. Maybe you have gone mad because you're doing that.
You don't exactly seem happy. What good is all this doing you? You used to be fun - genuinely one of my favourite posters on here. Your posts were funny.
Now you're just...boring. You come here every couple of weeks to tell us how idiotic we all are. But you don't seem to be enjoying life.
Lighten up, dude. It's OK, "they" aren't out to get us.
You're not helping us and you're certainly not helping yourself.

[Niall_Quinn]

And I previously asked you to direct me to the weighty debates that act as a counterbalance to this supposedly harmless fun. Crickets.

Yes, switching your brain off for a while and luxuriating in shite might be a refreshing respite. But adopting it as a way of life is not productive. In fact, if you then go on to obstruct thinking people, you've become a very serious problem.

As for the rest of your excuses, show me, don't tell me. Just kidding - you would have to be capable.

Yes, you are an idiot, because you keep proving it. And I come here every so often as one stop on a tour to see if any of the weighty matters of the world have impacted the tadpoles. And one day there will be thrashing in the pond. I use you as an indicator, nothing more, so don't get too defensive.

You can also stow the nostalgic bullshit, as if the world hasn't changed and it's only me. You have to try harder than that, or at least get some lessons so you can try to try harder than that.

Who was that comedia - some Aussie who was funny as hell and they cancelled him because he called out the jews. Anyway, whoever it was, he used to have this joke about a shit sandwich. It gets served up and the recipient turns his nose up. "Don't be so fucking negative!", chides the waiter. Munch, munch, munch, oh well, I see the weather is good today.

It's not a good look Letters.

And I don't eat shit sandwiches just because they have become fashionable.

Anyway, already too much time expended on a test subject.

[HCZ_Reborn]

And I previously asked you to direct me to the weighty debates that act as a counterbalance to this supposedly harmless fun. Crickets.

Yes, switching your brain off for a while and luxuriating in shite might be a refreshing respite. But adopting it as a way of life is not productive. In fact, if you then go on to obstruct thinking people, you've become a very serious problem.

As for the rest of your excuses, show me, don't tell me. Just kidding - you would have to be capable.

Yes, you are an idiot, because you keep proving it. And I come here every so often as one stop on a tour to see if any of the weighty matters of the world have impacted the tadpoles. And one day there will be thrashing in the pond. I use you as an indicator, nothing more, so don't get too defensive.

You can also stow the nostalgic bullshit, as if the world hasn't changed and it's only me. You have to try harder than that, or at least get some lessons so you can try to try harder than that.

Who was that comedia - some Aussie who was funny as hell and they cancelled him because he called out the jews. Anyway, whoever it was, he used to have this joke about a shit sandwich. It gets served up and the recipient turns his nose up. "Don't be so fucking negative!", chides the waiter. Munch, munch, munch, oh well, I see the weather is good today.

It's not a good look Letters.

And I don't eat shit sandwiches just because they have become fashionable.

Anyway, already too much time expended on a test subject.


Congratulations you’ve reached a level of pomposity that I could only ever aspire to

It should be obvious to you that Letters is the only one here who bothers debating you, and that’s mainly out of boredom. As you yourself have remarked I’m here very often but even I’m not that bored.


I also love that you view the fact that people won’t engage with you as a form of personal abuse. Plus if there’s a clash of civilisations between the woke elite and whatever it is you imagine yourself to be…my attitude is firmly go ahead kill each other.

Maybe this isn’t the right place for you, if the topics of discussion aren’t serious enough for you. Or on an even simpler vein you have the option to create a new thread, start a discussion there and see who wants to engage. For my part I can promise I’ll never set foot in that thread to plague it with banality.

Letters is right though, whilst you’ve always been a cunt. Being a miserable cunt has little in the way of charm.

[Letters]

And I previously asked you to direct me to the weighty debates that act as a counterbalance to this supposedly harmless fun. Crickets.
No. I did respond about that before.
You're expecting that sort of thing on a site called Goonersweb? :lol:
As HCZ said, if that's what you're looking for then boy are you in the wrong place.
Obviously you're free to start threads if you want more serious discussions and you can see who engages - I'm pretty sure that's what I said to you before. But don't expect much back. Partly because of how few people post here now, and because that's generally not why people come here.


Yes, switching your brain off for a while and luxuriating in shite might be a refreshing respite. But adopting it as a way of life is not productive.
GW is neither for life nor is it just for Christmas. People come here for some of that respite - as I said, isn't that what football is?
The way people post on here probably doesn't reflect what they say or do in the rest of their lives.
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men" - Willy Wonka.


In fact, if you then go on to obstruct thinking people, you've become a very serious problem.
Who is doing that? I'll call you out when I think you're talking bullshit but how am I or anyone else on here "obstructing" you?


You can also stow the nostalgic bullshit, as if the world hasn't changed and it's only me.
Who said the world hasn't changed? Of course it has but it's not been all change for the worse - or all change for the better. It's a mix.
I'm on a local history FB group and every every old picture of the area is met with a load of oldiewonks saying how much better things used to be.
Did they? Really? There was one picture from about 1913 and there were those inevitable comments.
Yeah - no inside toilet or central heating, significantly more poverty and inequality, no NHS, a child mortality rate of around 10% and a life expectancy of 52. Brilliant!
And it was just before WWI. I could go on. And sure, I'm sure there were some things which were better. It was simpler times. But my point is not everything about the past was better, old people just think that it was because they look back with rose-tinted specs to a time when they were younger, healthier and maybe therefore happier.
But I asked you a direct question: what exactly is it that we're no longer free to do than we once could?
Care to answer?
Of course you won't, because as always when you're pushed you can't actually respond with anything of substance.


It's not a good look Letters.
But you're the one claiming we're munching on shit sandwiches. You claiming that doesn't make you right.
You look down on us poor saps because you're the one who sees what's really going on. You don't have time for all the triviality you think we dwell on.
But your view of the world and what's "really going on" leads you to the wild claims you made during the pandemic.
What's really puzzling is that you don't at any point admit you were wrong about that or stop to consider why you were.

And you ignored my other question. What good is all this doing you? You dwell on the important matters of the day and you have an unhealthy paranoia about the powers that be and what they're up to - a paranoia which was shown to not be based in reality during the pandemic, hence all your wild predictions which were clearly at odds with how events unfolded. And what good does it do you? As I said, you used to post some really funny stuff on here. Now you're just tiresome. You don't seem happy. You lament that we're content eating "shit sandwiches" - the irony being we are content, you just seem pretty unhappy so what good is all this hand wringing doing you? My nephew seems to live in constant fear of imminent nuclear war - it's not doing him any good. I don't live in that fear because I'm pretty sure it's not going to happen and there's nothing I can do if it does. So what good would worrying about it do?

As you say above "switching your brain off for a while and luxuriating in shite might be a refreshing respite" - try it, dude. It would do you good. Because what you're doing right now clearly does you no good at all.

[Mac76]

:gp:

Letters :bow:

Ps - i must admit when i was young i was pretty worried about nuclear war but that was in the early 80s when Thatcher and Reagan were doing their best to start one - comedy sketch shows like Not the 9 o'clock news were full of nuclear war sketches - it was real

[Letters]

I should add, my nephew is over 40 :lol:
He's just a bit of an idiot, and has anxiety.

When I was a kid I remember it being something I was worried about. I was also worried about war breaking out and me being drafted - thankfully I'm too old for that now!

[HCZ_Reborn]

:gp:

Letters :bow:

Ps - i must admit when i was young i was pretty worried about nuclear war but that was in the early 80s when Thatcher and Reagan were doing their best to start one - comedy sketch shows like Not the 9 o'clock news were full of nuclear war sketches - it was real

Don’t like Thatcher or Reagan but very little evidence either were trying to start a nuclear war. In fact Reagan met with Gorbachev to negotiate a nuclear weapons limitation treaty. At that time people were made paranoid about nuclear war because it was regularly discussed on television, various documentaries from Panorama to World in Action went into forensic detail about how fucked we would be in the event of even a limited nuclear exchange as well as programs like Threads.
It became an obsession because the era known as Detente had ended with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but in reality we were much further away from that realistically happening than we’d been in 1962.
That said, ratcheting up the fear wasn’t always bad…it’s long been said that Reagan’s determination to avoid Nuclear war was at least partly inspired by a White House screening of The Day After (argued to be the American answer to Threads, although it’s a film rather than a Docudrama).

[HCZ_Reborn]

The problem is even if we were at a precipice, no one can agree on what the cause is let alone what the solution is.

I think for example Galloway’s victory despite the insistence many have to claim the canary in the coal mine died of natural causes, does suggest we have an issue of monolithic religious voting blocs that exemplify that we have a problem with many people holding views that run contrary to western values. Now to address the whataboutery of what about the far right. Well it might help if people looked at them to a degree as a single issue.

Take Nick Griffin who endorsed Galloway, outside of his rabble rousing against the Muslim community in this country he’s a big fan of hardline Islam…being a supporter of Hamas, Iran, Libya as well as Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. Why? Because take away the different skin colour - Griffin and Farrakhan have much in common, they believe in separation of the races and they despise Jews and Homosexuals.

Now Griffin is a bit of an outlier and he has had pushback from his old National Front/BNP buddies because they prioritise their view that non whites are inferior. But take away the objectives, and these are two groups that have many shared beliefs.

[Letters]

Trigger warning for those who don't want to talk about trivial subjects.


I cannot get enough of watching stuff about that disastrous Willy Wonka immersive experience :lol:
The more I see and read about it, the funnier it gets.

:lol:

[HCZ_Reborn]

Trigger warning for those who don't want to talk about trivial subjects.


I cannot get enough of watching stuff about that disastrous Willy Wonka immersive experience :lol:
The more I see and read about it, the funnier it gets.

:lol:

I haven’t engaged because….Glasgow. Soon as I see that city mentioned I switch off

Strange really, because I love Scotland as a country on the whole. But even the nicest places have scummy areas

[Letters]

I don't really care where it happened, it's not that relevant to the story.
You should have a look, it's all bloody funny :d

[HCZ_Reborn]

I don't really care where it happened, it's not that relevant to the story.
You should have a look, it's all bloody funny :d

It was a flippant remark, although I don’t particularly care for Glasgow. The Story doesn’t interest me greatly, even for amusement purposes.

An “experience” event in a civic building turns out to be cheap, amateurish and a bit weird. A council event planner wouldn’t bat an eyelid at that

[Letters]

It's a bit more than that. It's just the levels of incompetence, the hilariously poor production values, the disappointed kids, the actors heroically battling on.
Just an utter shit show from start to finish.
The picture of the Oompa Loompa lady looking so utterly pissed off in what for all the world looks like a meth lab.
The shabby scenery, the lonely small bouncy castle in the corner of a warehouse :lol:
It's a hilarious mess :d

[Mac76]

I haven’t engaged because….Glasgow. Soon as I see that city mentioned I switch off

Strange really, because I love Scotland as a country on the whole. But even the nicest places have scummy areas

I've been to Glasgow, admittedly only the nicer bit but it was fine and i got out alive...

One city i vowed never to go to is Liverpool, basically because it's full of scousers, wlthough i might have to go this year which i am not looking forward to... :(

[Letters]

Obviously I had to go to Liverpool on a Beatles pilgrimage :cool:
It's alright.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Now I actually like Liverpool, although there are pretty scummy areas there too. Glasgow itself is like any major city, it’s more the Glaswegians I don’t like. There’s no where else in Scotland where I’ve felt a resentment towards me from people I’ve never met before, now that’s my perception more than anything but it seemed like there was this shitty attitude every time they clocked I had an English accent.

It feels like the epicentre of Scots Nationalism. Inverness I don’t care for either, but that’s more the place…it’s a weirdly non descript town in the middle of some of the most picturesque areas in the whole uk…just oddly jarring.

[Niall_Quinn]

No. I did respond about that before.
You're expecting that sort of thing on a site called Goonersweb? :lol:
As HCZ said, if that's what you're looking for then boy are you in the wrong place.
Obviously you're free to start threads if you want more serious discussions and you can see who engages - I'm pretty sure that's what I said to you before. But don't expect much back. Partly because of how few people post here now, and because that's generally not why people come here.


GW is neither for life nor is it just for Christmas. People come here for some of that respite - as I said, isn't that what football is?
The way people post on here probably doesn't reflect what they say or do in the rest of their lives.
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men" - Willy Wonka.


Who is doing that? I'll call you out when I think you're talking bullshit but how am I or anyone else on here "obstructing" you?


Who said the world hasn't changed? Of course it has but it's not been all change for the worse - or all change for the better. It's a mix.
I'm on a local history FB group and every every old picture of the area is met with a load of oldiewonks saying how much better things used to be.
Did they? Really? There was one picture from about 1913 and there were those inevitable comments.
Yeah - no inside toilet or central heating, significantly more poverty and inequality, no NHS, a child mortality rate of around 10% and a life expectancy of 52. Brilliant!
And it was just before WWI. I could go on. And sure, I'm sure there were some things which were better. It was simpler times. But my point is not everything about the past was better, old people just think that it was because they look back with rose-tinted specs to a time when they were younger, healthier and maybe therefore happier.
But I asked you a direct question: what exactly is it that we're no longer free to do than we once could?
Care to answer?
Of course you won't, because as always when you're pushed you can't actually respond with anything of substance.


But you're the one claiming we're munching on shit sandwiches. You claiming that doesn't make you right.
You look down on us poor saps because you're the one who sees what's really going on. You don't have time for all the triviality you think we dwell on.
But your view of the world and what's "really going on" leads you to the wild claims you made during the pandemic.
What's really puzzling is that you don't at any point admit you were wrong about that or stop to consider why you were.

And you ignored my other question. What good is all this doing you? You dwell on the important matters of the day and you have an unhealthy paranoia about the powers that be and what they're up to - a paranoia which was shown to not be based in reality during the pandemic, hence all your wild predictions which were clearly at odds with how events unfolded. And what good does it do you? As I said, you used to post some really funny stuff on here. Now you're just tiresome. You don't seem happy. You lament that we're content eating "shit sandwiches" - the irony being we are content, you just seem pretty unhappy so what good is all this hand wringing doing you? My nephew seems to live in constant fear of imminent nuclear war - it's not doing him any good. I don't live in that fear because I'm pretty sure it's not going to happen and there's nothing I can do if it does. So what good would worrying about it do?

As you say above "switching your brain off for a while and luxuriating in shite might be a refreshing respite" - try it, dude. It would do you good. Because what you're doing right now clearly does you no good at all.


What freedoms do we no longer have? The right to protest? You'll have to tell the marches for Palestine that, a mate of mine has been on a few and he doesn't seem to have been carted off to the gulag just yet. What exactly is it that we're no longer free to do than we once could?

Now if you were aware in any meaningful way you could complete the circle on that one. Of course the hajjis are allowed to protest. Do you fancy, just an an exercise, walking through some areas of Londistan or the Leedsapur, or Birmingibad, hoisting a Union flag? Shouldn't be a problem in theoretical Britain, right? Any idea what would happen? Or how about trying to organise a non-politically acceptable protest outside your own parliament? Say to protest against those who were thrown out of work for not taking an experiential drug posing as a vaccination? What do you think would happen? Are you really claiming it's business as usual? Just move on, nothing to see? Ever watched a video of this country shot in 1960, or 1970 or 1980 or even as late as 1990? See any remarkable differences?

Anyway, it doesn't matter, this will all soon wind out and you fall into line with whatever comes next.

[Letters]

Now if you were aware in any meaningful way you could complete the circle on that one. Of course the hajjis are allowed to protest. Do you fancy, just an an exercise, walking through some areas of Londistan or the Leedsapur, or Birmingibad, hoisting a Union flag? Shouldn't be a problem in theoretical Britain, right? Any idea what would happen?
What do you think would happen and where is your evidence for that thought?


Or how about trying to organise a non-politically acceptable protest outside your own parliament? Say to protest against those who were thrown out of work for not taking an experiential drug posing as a vaccination? What do you think would happen?
Well. There was this. What did happen?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxSux8MwJsw

Have all those people been arrested and carted off somewhere? There were a lot of anti-lockdown and anti-vax protests during Covid.


Are you really claiming it's business as usual? Just move on, nothing to see? Ever watched a video of this country shot in 1960, or 1970 or 1980 or even as late as 1990? See any remarkable differences?
Well, I was alive from the 1990s onwards. I mean, I was alive in the 80s too and for some of the 70s while we're here, but 90s onwards I was a grown up and more aware of things I guess. And yes, I see differences in the country. I mean, my primary school photo is very...white. My classmates were James, Michael, Jonathan and Neil. My boy's class is very mixed and many of the names I've never heard of. Mostly not Muslim by the way, but some are. So yes, London has certainly become much more multicultural in my lifetime. Do I see that as a bad thing? Has my life got better for the worse? As I said, it's a mix. Some things about life have got better, some have not. I certainly don't think there's been a clear direction of travel to things getting worse. Things like the internet and social media are a good example - I find FB fun, I like chatting to you idiots (mostly), a lot of technologies have made life much more convenient. But the flip side is cyberbullying, phishing, online scams etc. I don't, overall, think life is worse.


Anyway, it doesn't matter, this will all soon wind out and you fall into line with whatever comes next.

What's the "this"? What will happen? I don't know what you think I'm falling in line with. If the army had been on the streets and there had been curfews and checkpoints then I think we'd have all agreed that would have been a bad thing. Life was worse for me in 2020 and 2021, I don't think many people enjoyed the pandemic or all the related restrictions. But life has now got back to normal, I'm enjoying all the things I enjoyed then. The only thing which is different is I now mostly work at home, but that's by choice. How has your life got worse over whatever time period you want to choose? I mean really, day to day. I don't mean a vague grumbling that "things ain't what they used to be". How in practice have things got worse for you?

[dazthegooner]

Just got back from watching MJ the musical absolutely brilliant.

[Letters]

Just got back from watching MJ the musical absolutely brilliant.

Hello! Long time, etc etc. Hope you’re well.
I can imagine it’s good. I’ve seen Thriller, the other tribute to him.
Obviously he’s tainted by the allegations, but I reckon I’d still go see it

[dazthegooner]

Yeah I'm fine thank you. Was good the actors/dancers were excellent was knackered watching them (ouch getting old :() definitely worth going to see no reference to Jordie (for some reason:sarcy:) though bubbles does get a mention :wacko:

[Niall_Quinn]

What do you think would happen and where is your evidence for that thought?

Are you serious? You ask, "What is your evidence?", as if I have to fill in the multitude of blanks you proudly disperse. Are you incapable of using a search engine? Even the biased, shit things that pass as a search engine these days? Are you incapable of glimpsing outside the BBC box? Shit is going on in this country, and it's very one-sided. Did you not hear the story about one of your cultist types being set upon by police for praying silently in her head in a "prohibited" zone? Meanwhile the hajiis parade down British streets waving their terror flags and not a single sanction. Explain to me why? Why should hajjis be allowed to promote terror organisations on our streets without sanction? Then Tommy Robinson turns up and we have a "racists" on our hands. It's almost as if the barbarians are not chanting "from the river to the sea". Are you really so determined to ignore what's in front of your, I suspect well-fed, face? You are comfortable, aren't you? Sucking at the teet of the state, robbed from people like me by the way. So you don't rock the boat. That makes you a parasite, and I guess parasites don't criticise the host.

Your cult is doing a good job of making you a eunuch.

[The Wengerbabies]

Haiti, not even once

https://twitter.com/dom_lucre/status/1766961877978898892

https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1766907143876194491

https://i.imgur.com/gNr8Jxw.jpeg

https://i.imgur.com/Dq7CCnF.jpeg

[Letters]

Are you serious? You ask, "What is your evidence?", as if I have to fill in the multitude of blanks you proudly disperse.
I know! Asking people to evidence their position. Completely unreasonable.
Although actually, you didn't really state a position. You implied it, but you mostly asked me to state mine. You threw out a couple of hypothetical situations and asked what I thought would happen in those situations. So OK, my answers:

1) Walking through some areas hoisting a Union flag. I don't think anything would happen. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? What do you think would happen and what evidence do you have for that?

2) Trying to organise a non-politically acceptable protest outside your own parliament.
The example you gave was around vaccination. So I provided a video showing people protesting that, which you have strangely ignored. I'm not sure that was outside parliament so here's one that is:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BvmeGzV_hY

See? I can use a search engine.
So...I don't have to imagine what would happen - there's a video of one such protest. And what did happen? I read there was a bit of trouble - you'd sort of expect that at any mass process - but were all those people carted off to the cells? Have they all been disappeared? So what actually happened was they were allowed to protest.


Did you not hear the story about one of your cultist types being set upon by police for praying silently in her head in a "prohibited" zone?
I've heard of these sorts of stories before. I looked in to this one and yes, that was a balls up by the police who, to be fair, have admitted as much and apologised to the woman. But don't conflate rare instances of over-zealous policing with that being official policy.


Meanwhile the hajiis parade down British streets waving their terror flags and not a single sanction. Explain to me why? Why should hajjis be allowed to promote terror organisations on our streets without sanction?
Wait...do you want freedom of expression or not? Do you only want freedom to protest when it's for things you agree with?
Or is your point the inconsistency. To which my response is I don't think there is any. As I said above, and have posted video evidence, anti-vaxx protests have been allowed outside parliament and we DO still have the right to peaceful protest in this country. You can keep claiming we don't if you like, but mass protests keep being allowed.
Tommy Robinson is a real life troll. He turns up to things to cause trouble then cries foul when he's removed.


Are you really so determined to ignore what's in front of your, I suspect well-fed, face?
You seem pretty determined to ignore anything which doesn't fit your agenda. You ask me to imagine what would happen if there were anti-vax protests outside parliament and then ignore a video I provide of one such protest.


You are comfortable, aren't you?
Yes. I suspect so are you.


Sucking at the teet of the state, robbed from people like me by the way
Your continued ignorance of my organisation and job and how those things are funded is noted :)


Your cult is doing a good job of making you a eunuch.
Do you mean my church again? The one you know literally nothing about? :)
It was funny how you started that whole conversation by railing against all the church structures my church was part of.
Then, when I said my church wasn't actually part of that you just switch to calling it a cult :lol:

Dude, seriously. How old are you? I know you won't answer that which is fine. But I'll start. I'll be 50 this year. My guess is you're either younger than me or not much older, but you act like a proper old man. Your whole thing, as well as all the paranoia about "them" and what "they" are doing, is how much better things were when you were young. The thwack of willow on leather on the village green, right? A misty eyed nostalgia for a lost time (which didn't actually exist, you know).

The truth is some things have got better in this country and some have got worse. It's a less racist, sexist, homophobic place than it was when I was a kid. I regard that as a good thing. Schools focus far more on children's wellbeing than they did when I was a kid, there's far more awareness of physical and sexual abuse than there was, far better protection for children.
It's a far more multi-cultural place than it was - I'm talking particularly about London now, as that's where I live, but it applies to a greater or lesser extent across the country. But it's certainly been a big change in the capital. It's too simplistic to say that's "good" or "bad", there are good aspects to it - it's enriched the country economically and made us more culturally diverse. It has created issues where certain groups want to live here but retain their culture. I mean, we did the same in Spain I guess - have you seen the Costa del Sol?! But that does create some issues.

Overall though, life in the UK is mostly pretty good for most people. You might not like the changes but a lot of that is "old man yells at cloud". I don't know what's happened to you over the last few years but your paranoia about the state and what "they" are up to was proven unfounded during the pandemic. And your hand-wringing nostalgia for a better past which didn't exist are doing you no good. It's a shame. You used to be fun, now you just come across as an unhappy and quite bitter person.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Not sure id go as far as saying the UK is good for most people (although it’s all relative I guess) but it feels like the mid-late 1970s in uk and USA. The inflation bordering on stagflation, the sense of malaise, a government in waiting that embodies positivity as much as Jimmy Carter did in his “Crisis of Confidence” speech.

The talk then was of irreversible decline as well. NQ has a little bit of a point about protests….the police won’t touch mass protests like the pro Palestine mob no matter how badly some of them behave. But the odd low hanging fruit are much easier for them.
But It’s less about authoritarianism and more about police deciding they aren’t well funded or staffed to do their job properly and then make easy and often unnecessary arrests to make up for it.



Everyone thinks we are at an inflection point (or perhaps hope we are) but ultimately we are looking at slow decay more than a forest fire.

[Letters]

Not sure id go as far as saying the UK is good for most people (although it’s all relative I guess)
I'd agree that's less true than it used to be with the cost of living stuff going on.
I do get a bit weary of oldiewonks going on about how great things used to be - when they're talking about an era before the NHS and the welfare state.


Everyone thinks we are at an inflection point (or perhaps hope we are) but ultimately we are looking at slow decay more than a forest fire.
Slow decay of what? And over what time period are you talking?

[HCZ_Reborn]

Britain is currently in a state of entropy. You can point at it as a recent thing or you can go back forty/fifty years or more. It’s the same as what the cause is and what form it’s even taking…it depends on who you ask.

A recent happiness survey had Britain as just behind Uzbekistan in overall sense of negativity


And that’s the thing, people aren’t happy….no matter the many things that divide us, the one thing that seems to unite us is that something is not right and someone is to blame

There’s often interestingly an inverse relationship between standard of living and happiness. The more people have, the more miserable they are.

Take that gobshite Lee Anderson today, he said “I want my country back”. A totally nebulous expression. But one that will resonate with some people…because people feel they have lost something even if they are crying for the moon. Too many immigrants?, too many ways in which you feel you can’t speak your mind anymore, too many people who seem to get everything handed to them whilst I’ve had to work hard….theres a febrile sense of resentment.

And I don’t think it’s going anywhere.

[Letters]

Interesting. Where did you see this? I had a quick Google and found this which puts us 19th. That's from 2022 so we may have dropped since

https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/happiness/

[HCZ_Reborn]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/united-kingdom/mental-wellness-index-uk-miserable-nation/


We know it doesn’t take much to go from being comfortable in mid table to being in a real relegation scrap

[Letters]

Interesting. That's such a different result from other "happiness indexes" - where we're not mid table, we're top 20 (just!) - I can't help thinking they're measuring different things.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Interesting. That's such a different result from other "happiness indexes" - where we're not mid table, we're top 20 (just!) - I can't help thinking they're measuring different things.

More than likely

From what I can gather, the telegraph article alludes to mental wellbeing

Now you can look at the spike in Anxiety amongst younger generations, but I don’t see how that wouldn’t account for other countries especially those in the Anglosphere

This is also a greater problem in the US, but I do feel it’s catching on here. Anxiety by its nature becomes a problem when there’s no actual reason to feel Anxious or indeed the amount of Anxiety you feel is completely out of proportion with the issue of concern.

And I think there’s an element of setting up kids to fail. Too much helicopter parenting (supervised activities rather than letting kids go off and play by themselves), safetyism (if one kid has a slight peanut allergy the whole school bans peanuts from the premise) and over analysis of feelings. If a child loses a beloved grandparent or even a family pet, they haven’t suffered a trauma they are going through the very normal process of grief…they don’t need to see a therapist…they need to understand that feeling sad is normal it doesn’t need to be fixed and that time is a healer. But most importantly that adversity or bad things happening won’t break them.

Theres a need to delineate the every day/mundane from genuine trauma and instill a bit of resilience. But we don’t, because we remember feeling awkward, ashamed, embarrassed, even scared as a child and we foolishly think we need to protect our own kids from ever feeling bad.


Much of what I’ve said doesn’t relate to British misery at all, but it is a pet peeve of mine

[The Wengerbabies]

Warning: Extreme gore: Hatian plays with dead decapitated head and pulls it's eyeballs out:

https://i.imgur.com/PiFaHMb.mp4

Warning

These are the kinds of people the left are happy to import.

They are animals.

[Letters]

And I think there’s an element of setting up kids to fail. Too much helicopter parenting (supervised activities rather than letting kids go off and play by themselves), safetyism (if one kid has a slight peanut allergy the whole school bans peanuts from the premise) and over analysis of feelings. If a child loses a beloved grandparent or even a family pet, they haven’t suffered a trauma they are going through the very normal process of grief…they don’t need to see a therapist…they need to understand that feeling sad is normal it doesn’t need to be fixed and that time is a healer. But most importantly that adversity or bad things happening won’t break them.

Theres a need to delineate the every day/mundane from genuine trauma and instill a bit of resilience. But we don’t, because we remember feeling awkward, ashamed, embarrassed, even scared as a child and we foolishly think we need to protect our own kids from ever feeling bad.

Like most things in life, there needs to be a bit of balance.
Oldiewonks often complain about health and safety and how they never got hurt when they were kids. Well there's a fair bit of survivor's bias there. They might not have been hurt, that doesn't mean that things were safe and some of these measures aren't a good idea and keep people safer.
Or "a good thrashing never did me any harm". Well...didn't it? Is physically beating a child really a good method of discipline?

I think some of these changes have been good, being more mindful of kids' mental state. Being kinder, basically.
But of course these things can go too far, kids need to develop a bit of resilience too and some of these things could stop them doing that.
But I'm also mindful that I'm an old bastard and some of my feeling about these things may just be me getting old and grumpy.

[Letters]

These are the kinds of people the left are happy to import.
No it isn't

:rolleyes:

[HCZ_Reborn]

Like most things in life, there needs to be a bit of balance.
Oldiewonks often complain about health and safety and how they never got hurt when they were kids. Well there's a fair bit of survivor's bias there. They might not have been hurt, that doesn't mean that things were safe and some of these measures aren't a good idea and keep people safer.
Or "a good thrashing never did me any harm". Well...didn't it? Is physically beating a child really a good method of discipline?

I think some of these changes have been good, being more mindful of kids' mental state. Being kinder, basically.
But of course these things can go too far, kids need to develop a bit of resilience too and some of these things could stop them doing that.
But I'm also mindful that I'm an old bastard and some of my feeling about these things may just be me getting old and grumpy.



Health and Safety laws are generally for the purpose of legal indemnity, it’s a form of comprehensive insurance taken out by all companies. And generally most new employees will have to take health and safety computer based training so if they do have an accident they won’t have any cause to sue the company. You don’t see these where there’s blame there’s a claim legal adverts so much anymore

It’s not really germane to what I’m saying


Neither is smacking which again I didn’t mention.


I’m of the opinion if anything that it’s a good thing that children have access to mental health services, because believe you me that wasn’t the case ten years ago. What I’m saying is that there is a difference between being able to offer therapy to children who are genuinely struggling with mental health or trauma and to presume that every adverse incident that may befall a child is akin to trauma. No child is alike, but I’m minded towards giving them the confidence to know that good things can come from adversity, it’s teachable and the adage what doesn’t kill you can only make you stronger does have some relevant meaning.
I’m not advocating telling kids to man up, or diminishing what they are going through. But the type of therapy I deal with is the philosophy that emotional distress is far more about how we process an external event than the event itself. Now there are events that are objective traumatising, but fortunately for many kids in this day and age they aren’t the norm.

[HCZ_Reborn]

I exclusively counsel the over 18s, because counselling anyone younger than that is a completely different ball game and i can’t imagine given I’ve neither worked with kids previously nor do I have children means it’s not something I’d especially want to do.
The nearest was a 19 year old girl. Nice kid….but perhaps because she was on the spectrum perhaps not as emotionally mature as you’d expect for her age. But either way, very polite, thoughtful etc. But she came to me because of how she was suffering from depression. And a bit of exploration and the thing is she’d lost a lot of people close to her in a short period of time and this had caused her to worry that this would continue to happen.
Basically the important thing to get across was that it was normal for her to feel that way given she was going through grief.
We had 12 sessions together, and I like to think our time together (where I’d mainly just listen to her without trying to medicalise her) was influential in her being a lot more confident and happy by the time we finished.

[Letters]

I don't think we're talking about hugely different things.
We're both talking about whether kids are coddled too much and thus don't develop resilience.
I'm talking about it in a more general sense.

[IBK]

Health and Safety laws are generally for the purpose of legal indemnity, it’s a form of comprehensive insurance taken out by all companies. And generally most new employees will have to take health and safety computer based training so if they do have an accident they won’t have any cause to sue the company. You don’t see these where there’s blame there’s a claim legal adverts so much anymore

It’s not really germane to what I’m saying


Neither is smacking which again I didn’t mention.


I’m of the opinion if anything that it’s a good thing that children have access to mental health services, because believe you me that wasn’t the case ten years ago. What I’m saying is that there is a difference between being able to offer therapy to children who are genuinely struggling with mental health or trauma and to presume that every adverse incident that may befall a child is akin to trauma. No child is alike, but I’m minded towards giving them the confidence to know that good things can come from adversity, it’s teachable and the adage what doesn’t kill you can only make you stronger does have some relevant meaning.
I’m not advocating telling kids to man up, or diminishing what they are going through. But the type of therapy I deal with is the philosophy that emotional distress is far more about how we process an external event than the event itself. Now there are events that are objective traumatising, but fortunately for many kids in this day and age they aren’t the norm.

Very good point regarding H&S laws. More generally, our tendency to try to legislate for every possible eventuality shifts the onus from seeing events in context, and applying common sense to situations that are (a) generally as individual as human beings themselves are; (b) infinitely variable and (c) should include an element of discretion, to an unwieldy and ultimately unjust system that tends to favour those at the top of the pile. It's been proven time and time again that while we think we can eliminate risk, the more complex our systems are to protect against this, the more likely these will fail.

[HCZ_Reborn]

I don't think we're talking about hugely different things.
We're both talking about whether kids are coddled too much and thus don't develop resilience.
I'm talking about it in a more general sense.

To be clear I’m not looking at this through a perspective of bloody woke snowflakes. I’m actually concerned that this over protective instincts both parents and the education system have is actually doing considerable harm to our young people. They are less equipped to deal with setbacks, have a massively overinflated sense of danger and we see the result in the spiking of anxiety levels amongst teenagers and young adults.

The problem is at a more advanced stage in the United States but I fear we are not too far behind

I want to be careful not to try and make this out to be a singular explanation. Young people are also getting the shaft because of the way the economic situation in this country has consolidated wealth in land/property ownership. The problem isn’t that there isn’t enough houses, the problem is that they’ve become prohibitively expensive because they are still looked at as a financial asset more than somewhere that is a roof over your head.

In terms of disposable income that allows us to purchase luxuries from takeaways to foreign holidays there’s no doubt that this generation is more privileged than any before hand, but this is severely undermined by the lack of security of affordable bricks and mortar.

[Letters]

(From PopBitch)

“What’s the difference between a casual party and a pirate orgy?
At a casual party you come as you are…”

[HCZ_Reborn]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIvSkH0WsAAG3BS?format=jpg&name=medium


So much for the claim that the UK wants to reverse Brexit


Adopting the Euro is not much of a caveat because it would be a necessary prerequisite of our rejoining.

[Letters]

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/majority-britons-support-rejoining-eu-single-market-poll-2023-11-29/
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/have-voters-cooled-on-the-prospect-of-re-joining-the-eu/

:shrug:

Different polls at different times seem to indicate different things.

[HCZ_Reborn]

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/majority-britons-support-rejoining-eu-single-market-poll-2023-11-29/
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/have-voters-cooled-on-the-prospect-of-re-joining-the-eu/

:shrug:

Different polls at different times seem to indicate different things.


Yes especially when you’re putting totally different propositions to people. Im not entirely convinced by rejoining the single market (I think the Russia-Ukraine conflict risks precipitating a collapse of the entire EU within the next decade so we ideally want to be as far away from that as possible) but especially anyone who owns a business that involves trade with the continent, the chance to harmonise imports and exports would be welcome.


Although I wonder if a majority would still support it if the poll was explicit that rejoining the single market required us to accept freedom of movement

Very different from rejoining the organisation especially as a default we would be required to join the single currency. Do I give a fuck about the pound? No not at all.


But if you look especially at what the ECB has done to Greece, it’s similar to how the Mafia behaves. Lends people money that it knows they will never be able to pay back and then uses this to muscle in on the business. The central bank essentially owns loads of Greek Antiquity (They are the assets against which the organisation underwrote Greek debts)

No one in their right mind wants to be part of that (which doesn’t say much good for the state of mind of 44% of people sampled in this poll)

[Letters]

Just got back from watching MJ the musical absolutely brilliant.

Right. Booked tickets for my birthday purely on the strength of this review.
If it's no good then I'm blaming you for spoiling my birthday :angry:

[The Wengerbabies]

Although I wonder if a majority would still support it if the poll was explicit that rejoining the single market required us to accept freedom of movement



When sold correctly yes https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/news/brexit/mutual-free-movement-for-uk-and-eu-citizens-supported-by-up-to-84-of-brits-in-stunning-new-poll/

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/47997-britons-support-rejoining-the-single-market-even-if-it-means-free-movement

[The Wengerbabies]

[

Adopting the Euro is not much of a caveat because it would be a necessary prerequisite of our rejoining.

Poland and Sweden (amongst others) are obligated to join but have absolutely no intention. Sweden even had a referendum on it and refused.

But you can't really campaign for rejoining by openly saying you're going to flout your obligations.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Poland and Sweden (amongst others) are obligated to join but have absolutely no intention. Sweden even had a referendum on it and refused.

But you can't really campaign for rejoining by openly saying you're going to flout your obligations.

There’s a difference between already being a member and declining to join, which we along with Denmark and as you say Poland and Sweden declined to do. And joining the organisation anew as of 2024.

Whilst Poland officially joined after the launch of the single currency (in 2004) its accession was ratified many years before

The EU has no mechanism for expelling members, therefore it has no leverage over current members

A prospective member? Different Kettle of Poissons

[HCZ_Reborn]

When sold correctly yes https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/news/brexit/mutual-free-movement-for-uk-and-eu-citizens-supported-by-up-to-84-of-brits-in-stunning-new-poll/

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/47997-britons-support-rejoining-the-single-market-even-if-it-means-free-movement

You’re a very peculiar individual if you don’t mind me saying. You must admit that there’s quite the disparity between advocating for summary execution of channel migrants and arguing that you can make a good public pitch for the free movement of people (open borders amongst the what would be again 27 states)

[The Wengerbabies]

You’re a very peculiar individual if you don’t mind me saying. You must admit that there’s quite the disparity between advocating for summary execution of channel migrants and arguing that you can make a good public pitch for the free movement of people (open borders amongst the what would be again 27 states)

Not at all. Those coming on boats are illegal. Mutual free movement between citizens of friendly countries with similar values is a great thing.

More importantly I'm selfish, losing freedom of movement makes it impossible for me to travel in the Schengen area more than 90 days in a 180 day period.

[dazthegooner]

Right. Booked tickets for my birthday purely on the strength of this review.
If it's no good then I'm blaming you for spoiling my birthday :angry:
:ninja:

[HCZ_Reborn]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68590846

Another one who comes under the Didn’t know he was still Alive category


Certainly assumed he was a lot older than he was


Thought Make me Smile was late 60s and he was in his thirties when he recorded it


Oh well…soz

[Letters]

I think I knew it was a 70s song.
Had no idea if he was still alive though.

[Shaqiri Is Boss]

:ninja:

Well presumably that's only for the first half?

[Letters]

Well presumably that's only for the first half?

:haha:

[HCZ_Reborn]

Did a breakdown of my DNA recently. Nothing fascinating like Sub Saharan Africa or Sephardic Jew. 40% Southern England, 46% Celtic - A breakdown of 23% Ireland, 20% Scottish and 3% Welsh

Knew I was 1/4 Irish to begin with, but managed to pinpoint exact point of Ireland. Complete arse end of the country in County Kerry overlooking the Atlantic coast :haha:

Purely speculative but I’m guessing the Scandinavian bit comes from when the Vikings invaded the Northumberland coastline in the 11th century. Got a bit of a taste for the local ladies (my mums father was from the North East)


That and burning people alive

[Letters]

Gawd bless ‘er!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68641441

:(

[The Wengerbabies]

Cancer 2-0 parasites

There is some evidence that the has vax caused a rise in cancer cases, it's not something I've really looked into but could this be a factor? I thought they would have got the saline injection tbh.

[Letters]

:lol:

Dear me.

[The Wengerbabies]

There was also speculation Wills wanted a divorce to get his second wife in before becoming King, maybe they've progressed since the Diana days and are taking care of business more subtly?

[Letters]

You know that most of that speculation is some bloke down the pub or on the internet.
As for the cancer/vax link. Find some data.
Your previous dalliance in this area was a link between heart conditions and the vaccine. Just reading the article you posted it actually said they had to look at millions of people to find any effect, and the article said that there’s a far bigger chance of these effects from Covid itself than from the vaccine. I don’t know if you’re trolling or just don’t bother reading past the headline which you think backs up your worldview.

[The Wengerbabies]

Your previous dalliance in this area was a link between heart conditions and the vaccine. .

Yep. Nasty thing. Seems to be causing all sorts of ailments. Glad I wasn't conned into taking it but I worry for those of my family that were.

[The Wengerbabies]

https://rumble.com/v128lrv-the-explosion-of-cancer-and-latent-disease-the-lipid-nanoparticle-platform-.html

[Letters]

I’m a boring troll!
:good:

[Mac76]

Did a breakdown of my DNA recently. Nothing fascinating like Sub Saharan Africa or Sephardic Jew. 40% Southern England, 46% Celtic - A breakdown of 23% Ireland, 20% Scottish and 3% Welsh

Knew I was 1/4 Irish to begin with, but managed to pinpoint exact point of Ireland. Complete arse end of the country in County Kerry overlooking the Atlantic coast :haha:

Purely speculative but I’m guessing the Scandinavian bit comes from when the Vikings invaded the Northumberland coastline in the 11th century. Got a bit of a taste for the local ladies (my mums father was from the North East)


That and burning people alive

So what about the other 14% - is that the Scandinian bit?

Anyway we're all ultimately descendants of people originating in Africa

[HCZ_Reborn]

So what about the other 14% - is that the Scandinian bit?

Anyway we're all ultimately descendants of people originating in Africa

Yes yes it is

Indeed but I don’t think it probably has the sophistication to trace us all the way back to the African savannahs unless for some reason that’s in our bloodline in the last thousand years or so.

[WMUG]

My mate did one of those. Turned out to be like 99% Chinese and 1% South American.

He thinks it might be from the people who crossed the Bering Strait when it was still a land bridge.

[Letters]

My mate did one of those. Turned out to be like 99% Chinese and 1% South American.

He thinks it might be from the people who crossed the Bering Strait when it was still a land bridge.

Before The Flood, you mean?


What? :sulk:

[The Wengerbabies]

Yes yes it is

Indeed but I don’t think it probably has the sophistication to trace us all the way back to the African savannahs unless for some reason that’s in our bloodline in the last thousand years or so.

Of course it's not that sophisticated it's not meant to be it's a DNA collecting project for the likes of the CIA.

Just lol at willingly giving them your DNA, they don't even have to try anymore. Morons happily hand over all there data,

[Letters]

:lol:

Trolling :bow:

[HCZ_Reborn]

Of course it's not that sophisticated it's not meant to be it's a DNA collecting project for the likes of the CIA.

Just lol at willingly giving them your DNA, they don't even have to try anymore. Morons happily hand over all there data,

Ancestry.com are in bed with American intelligence?


You can’t trust anyone these days


Still though it’s nice to know they are keeping the spirit of Allen Dulles and Richard Helms alive

[Mac76]

Tbh Wengerbabiea unusually may have a point.

The intelligence agencies do have, or can get, permission to see data from private companies, plus there is if course the possibility of hacking

so giving someone your DNA does make you more vulnerable to having it shared, it just stands to reason

[HCZ_Reborn]

Tbh Wengerbabiea unusually may have a point.

The intelligence agencies do have, or can get, permission to see data from private companies, plus there is if course the possibility of hacking

so giving someone your DNA does make you more vulnerable to having it shared, it just stands to reason

You understand of course the difference between something having the potential to happen and something being likely to happen?

Intelligence services could well access my DNA from any number of sources were they to consider it beneficial to them to have this information.

The same with Hacking, given the amount of information that is stored on servers the size of small underground cities.

Life is all about cost/benefit analysis, and the benefit of having my curiosity sated outweighed the incredibly small risk of a clandestine organisation being interested enough in getting my genetic code.

[Letters]

Stupid sexy Titchmarsh!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-68664644

[The Wengerbabies]

Happy Gesture Friday!

[Mac76]

Happy Gesture Friday!

Jeez man, take the day off

[Niall_Quinn]

You understand of course the difference between something having the potential to happen and something being likely to happen?

Intelligence services could well access my DNA from any number of sources were they to consider it beneficial to them to have this information.

The same with Hacking, given the amount of information that is stored on servers the size of small underground cities.

Life is all about cost/benefit analysis, and the benefit of having my curiosity sated outweighed the incredibly small risk of a clandestine organisation being interested enough in getting my genetic code.

You're missing it. Of course some doughnut eating saviour of the world at NSA is not going to directly look up your personal record unless there's a connection with somebody worth the effort. But AI will. Because it can handle in a second what a million people will take a year to shuffle, and still get wrong. The whole game has changed. Allowing these bastards the latitude they have is a very, very bad idea whether they use that scope or not. Whole new world coming with amazing horrors that, genuinely, nobody can see coming. I mean I have a good imagination and have some idea what these horrible cunts might WANT to do. But I can't match the blink of an eye consideration of all possibilities and outcomes. Data will certainly, definitely be the undoing of mankind. It already is. It's just not announced yet.

[Niall_Quinn]

Ancestry.com are in bed with American intelligence?


You can’t trust anyone these days


Still though it’s nice to know they are keeping the spirit of Allen Dulles and Richard Helms alive

Not in bed, as in dating. More in bed as in hired for the night. Cheap little whores who will take the cash. Like all these compnies with happy little hand drawn videos and jangly music. It's nauseating, but where we are.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Letter’s favourite biologist has been trending because Christian Conservatives think he’s done an about turn by saying he considers Christian culture superior to Islamic culture (it is) and that he considers himself a cultural Christian.

Not a big fan of Dawkins because he’s not the best advocate for his argument but he’s been saying the same thing for decades. And unfortunately the Christian right have falsely conflated his view with a belief they think New Atheists had of a) wanting to eliminate Christian culture rather than eliminate coercive theology and that b) Any Anti Theist would not rightly consider Islam the most pernicious and dangerous of beliefs because it hasn’t been forced into reform by modernity.

Im a cultural Christian, I celebrate Christmas…I find religiously inspired art and literature and music uplifting and I believe the Churches and Cathedrals of this country are aesthetically pleasing…I wouldn’t be without them, life would be sterile. There’s also no doubt Christian morality has some influence on my thinking. Morality is not innate, it is driven by the culture in which we exist…it’s also changeable otherwise we wouldn’t have ridden ourselves of slavery and human sacrifice

What I don’t hold to be true, is that anything in the New Testament is true or that I’m locked into a covenant of blood because an apocryphal figure was crucified in Bronze Age Judea

This idea that you can’t embrace symbols without tolerating the meaning is a nonsense. It’s the same bollocks you get when people object to Rule Britannia and land of hope and glory at the last night of the proms because of its idolatry of British superiority and colonialism.

[Niall_Quinn]

Im a cultural Christian

That's a sweet statement. It sums it up perfectly. I'm surprised I didn't think of that statement.

Yes. Of course. Christian as in how society developed in the light of Christianity, NOT how the poxy church demanded it developed. This is the absolutely essential distinction.

And not only that - but the AMOUNT of Christianity that was drip-fed over the ages. It took advocates being burned alive to promote the idea people should be allowed to read the Bible in their own language. How fucked up must a system be if they can't even allow you to translate it into an understandable language?

So, in some ways, Christianity was concealed yet people still understood the principle of it. Argue that how you will, I think it's innate. People know right from wrong, regardless of how they behave. Letters would consult an approved textbook and pronounce the dishonest dichotomy as a conspiracy theory, however. Yet he still might possess an innate trait for goodness, even though he shuns it.

The distinction between man and God is paramount, and anyone who believes the word of man over the Word of God (I can define my idea of God if necessary, but don't presume to define yours) is not OF God, is apart from God, the opposite of God, or the anti-God, or -- allowing may take on it, anti-natural, or anti-nature. If you ever find yourself denying nature you're are in deep, deep, shit. And that's just about every church and spin-off that exists today.

You CANNOT be a Christian if you follow the doctrine of your church - ANY church. Because your church has NOTHING in common with the culture it preaches to, and never did. Try telling a priest that though, or Letters, and suddenly YOU are the evil, demonic, anti-Christ.

[Niall_Quinn]

TLDR; I kind of get there's shit bigger than me in this universe.

[Letters]

Letters would consult an approved textbook
Do you mean "The Bible"? :lol:
Earlier in this post you were lamenting (correctly) the fact that back in the day people couldn't read The Bible in their own language. I'm confused that you always seem to think it's cheating when I use Bible verses to back up by beliefs. That's where they come from.


pronounce the dishonest dichotomy as a conspiracy theory
I don't know what that means.


anyone who believes the word of man over the Word of God
What is the Word of God if it isn't The Bible?


You CANNOT be a Christian if you follow the doctrine of your church - ANY church. Because your church has NOTHING in common with the culture it preaches to, and never did.
I'm not sure my church has any "doctrine" other than what's in the Bible. You cannot be a Christian if you don't follow the teachings in there - or try to at least, no-one gets that completely right (Romans 3:23)
Jesus was counter-cultural. The church is counter-cultural.

[Letters]

Not a big fan of Dawkins
I like his writings on evolution - I've read The Blind Watchmaker and it's very well explained.
I just wish he'd stay in his lane. I've not read The God Delusion but I've heard bits from it and he's so ignorant on the subject.
I do sometimes wonder if something has happened to him - as in, a bad experience with church when he was younger. Most people who don't believe are content enough for others to believe. It's unusual for someone to be so "evangelical" in their unbelief, it's not enough for him not to believe, he doesn't want anyone else to either. Odd.

[HCZ_Reborn]

I like his writings on evolution - I've read The Blind Watchmaker and it's very well explained.
I just wish he'd stay in his lane. I've not read The God Delusion but I've heard bits from it and he's so ignorant on the subject.
I do sometimes wonder if something has happened to him - as in, a bad experience with church when he was younger. Most people who don't believe are content enough for others to believe. It's unusual for someone to be so "evangelical" in their unbelief, it's not enough for him not to believe, he doesn't want anyone else to either. Odd.


I see this objection a lot, what made you this way?

I think it probably needs taking into account that men like Dawkins and Hitchens come from a generation where the Church of England was a little more pushy than it is today. Dont get me wrong we aren’t talking about Middle Ages repression but there was this kind of tut tut finger wagging especially in schools if someone took exception to nonsense hymns like “All things Bright and Beautiful”

Plus religion and science are destined to rub up against each other so there’s just no sense in asking science to stay in its lane. There’s also no sense in becoming resentful about it, Jesus told his followers that they should expect to be ridiculed for their beliefs…so in essence any attempt to defenestrate God should be looked upon as a test of faith that presumably because your belief hasn’t been affected you’ve passed.

Equally you have the right of reply, which you’ve exercised by questioning the extent of Dawkins understanding of your belief system. How accurate and fair that criticism is, you know what? I couldn’t say

[Letters]

I think it probably needs taking into account that men like Dawkins and Hitchens come from a generation where the Church of England was a little more pushy than it is today. Dont get me wrong we aren’t talking about Middle Ages repression but there was this kind of tut tut finger wagging especially in schools if someone took exception to nonsense hymns like “All things Bright and Beautiful”


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDSLSk76WKo

It's a reasonable point about the C of E being more pushy - certainly more ingrained in society. But I still wonder if there's anything specific that happened to Dawkins to make him so anti religion. It's not an objection, I'm just curious.


Plus religion and science are destined to rub up against each other so there’s just no sense in asking science to stay in its lane.
They do rub up against each other but I don't really think they should. I mentioned before I did a preach on this, how I see them as more complimentary than adversarial. I do think the church are to blame for a lot of this - famously putting Galileo under house arrest for daring to suggest that the earth wasn't the centre of the universe. And there are Bible verses which can be read as claiming the earth is stationary and at the centre of the universe but I don't believe The Bible should be read like a science book. Even now a fair number of Christians seem to believe it should. Early Genesis reveals some deep truths* about us being a creation and having a purpose, the mechanics of it all are best left to science and the language is clearly poetic.
(*well, I believe they're truths!)


There’s also no sense in becoming resentful about it, Jesus told his followers that they should expect to be ridiculed for their beliefs…so in essence any attempt to defenestrate God should be looked upon as a test of faith that presumably because your belief hasn’t been affected you’ve passed.
I think resentful would be overstating it, it's more of an irritation. Dawkins just doesn't know what he's talking about on this subject.


Equally you have the right of reply, which you’ve exercised by questioning the extent of Dawkins understanding of your belief system. How accurate and fair that criticism is, you know what? I couldn’t say
As I said, I haven't read The God Delusion, but I did see a series he did "The Root of All Evil", which was him going round finding extremists and then going "See? See how dangerous this is?". But then he did interview some more moderate Christians and just accused them of not following the Gospel, to back that up he cherry picked Old Testament Bible verses with no understanding of the context (Christians are prone to doing this too, to be fair). It was a bit of a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument. The more extreme views he used to back up his thoughts on religion. The more moderate ones - which are more aligned to the Christianity I encounter - he just dismissed as not being the real deal.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Religion deals in revealed truth. By its very nature it cannot avoid conflicting with science. Any religion will consider its message good for all time, and therefore it will naturally contradict science which forever is changing as our understanding changes and development.

I’ve just stopped myself there. Because I think this is where the division lies. If you believe in God (the monotheistic Abrahamic one for the sake of argument) you will believe that God created the universe and thus every scientific concept that comes with that. If you don’t, you believe that Christianity was written by people in Bronze Age Middle East who had almost no understanding of the world around them let alone a cosmological understanding.

Now it’s fair to say whichever one of those explanations is true, and I don’t think you need guess at which one I think is true that Christianity as an institution rather than a belief system has had to adapt to the cultural and scientific changes of an ever changing world

If you read Hitchens God is not Great on Why Religion Poisons everything (slightly antagonistic title :lol:) he speaks fondly of this old lady who was his primary school teacher and how she explained that it was proof of God’s divinity that he made all the plants a restful colour like Green rather than something more strenuous on the eyes. Where as Hitchens as a little boy thought this was plainly nonsense and it was far more likely that the eyes have to adapt to their environment

[Letters]

Religion deals in revealed truth. By its very nature it cannot avoid conflicting with science. Any religion will consider its message good for all time, and therefore it will naturally contradict science which forever is changing as our understanding changes and development.
I don't see it like that at all. Yes, science develops over time and changes our understanding of the Universe. As I noted in my preach, that may change the way we understand certain passages of Scripture. I used Galileo as the example, the heliocentric model changes the way we understand certain verses (e.g. "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved" - Psalm 104:5).
If I'd been born 500 years ago I'd probably believe that early Genesis was literally how things happened - 6 literal days of creation. Now I don't believe that. Because science. But the truths that Genesis reveals - that we are a creation, that we were created by God for relationship with Him, that our rebellion spoiled that relationship with God - those persist.
The only reason there's an issue is that some Christians still seem to think that Genesis should be read like a scientific text. To me they're missing the point of the writing - which is to reveal those truths.
It's not in the scope of Christianity to talk about how the universe began in the sense of the mechanics of it.
It's not in the scope of science to talk about whether there's a God or whether we have a purpose.


I’ve just stopped myself there. Because I think this is where the division lies. If you believe in God (the monotheistic Abrahamic one for the sake of argument) you will believe that God created the universe and thus every scientific concept that comes with that. If you don’t, you believe that Christianity was written by people in Bronze Age Middle East who had almost no understanding of the world around them let alone a cosmological understanding.
You're creating a false dichotomy there. I believe God created the universe.
I also believe that Scripture was written by people in the Middle East who had almost no understanding of the world around them let alone a cosmological understanding. I do believe those writings are inspired by God but there's no contradiction between those two things.


Christianity as an institution rather than a belief system has had to adapt to the cultural and scientific changes of an ever changing world
Absolutely. And it's not something we've been very good at - again, Galileo being put under house arrest.
I think it's something we've got better at, but my father in law still appears to be dragging his heels, he occasionally posts memes about evolution which show a depressing ignorance of the subject.


If you read Hitchens God is not Great on Why Religion Poisons everything (slightly antagonistic title :lol:) he speaks fondly of this old lady who was his primary school teacher and how she explained that it was proof of God’s divinity that he made all the plants a restful colour like Green rather than something more strenuous on the eyes. Where as Hitchens as a little boy thought this was plainly nonsense and it was far more likely that the eyes have to adapt to their environment

Well she sounds sweet, but a little simple and misguided.
A bit like my father in law :lol:

[HCZ_Reborn]

But that poses the question, if you accept that scripture is man made (albeit divinely inspired) and that similarly any alteration to that religion’s ethos is also man edited. Does it not rather either relegate God to being a rather irrelevant figure either that or give people the incredible opportunity to claim that they are an instrument of God?

[Letters]

But that poses the question, if you accept that scripture is man made (albeit divinely inspired) and that similarly any alteration to that religion’s ethos is also man edited.
When you say ethos. I've said my understanding of early Genesis is different from how I'd have read it a few centuries back. But I don't think my understanding of the important message of that passage would be different.
My belief that I'm a creation and was created by God for a purpose is far more significant than whether the earth is a few thousand years old or billions of years. The latter doesn't actually matter - I mean, it does in the sense that truth is important, but whether we have a purpose fundamentally changes our understanding of our identity. The age of the rock we happen to live on really doesn't. Which is why I don't really understand why some Christians have such a bee in their bonnet about it.


Does it not rather either relegate God to being a rather irrelevant figure either that or give people the incredible opportunity to claim that they are an instrument of God?
It's the latter. The Bible says that Moses spoke to God like people talked to each other.

[HCZ_Reborn]

This could lead down a very pointless cul de sac which is fine when I’ve got plenty of time but I’ve already lost an hour today to a power cut.

But I do kind of think these all very much service human appetites, the belief that God put you on earth for a purpose does seem to appeal to that human solipsism, that desire to be important or have a function. It’s clear that the question of a meaning of life does stretch well beyond the Christian faith.

Personally? Even from a philosophical stand point it’s never remotely interested me. I’m the product of cause and effect that being that unprotected sex brings about pregnancy and my non celestial purpose was that my parents wanted a second child.
I don’t think I was meant to be the fastest sperm, it just ended up that way. The purpose of my existence is not pre ordained although that in itself does pose an interesting segue way into the nature vs nurture argument and whether free will is an illusion (it is in the technical sense that your actions are limited by your physical environment, your physical ability and the extent of your understanding) - I can’t will myself to invent a Time Machine because I lack the capacity to make such a device or even the scientific comprehension to understand even in a theoretical sense if such a device is even possible

It’s probably just as well that you don’t take a literalist interpretation of Genesis given that people are recorded as living up to 900 years.

[WMUG]

I don't see it like that at all. Yes, science develops over time and changes our understanding of the Universe. As I noted in my preach, that may change the way we understand certain passages of Scripture. I used Galileo as the example, the heliocentric model changes the way we understand certain verses (e.g. "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved" - Psalm 104:5).
If I'd been born 500 years ago I'd probably believe that early Genesis was literally how things happened - 6 literal days of creation. Now I don't believe that. Because science. But the truths that Genesis reveals - that we are a creation, that we were created by God for relationship with Him, that our rebellion spoiled that relationship with God - those persist.

Isn't that a rather convenient way of shaping the words to suit your pre-existing worldview, rather than using the words to shape your beliefs?

That's hardly unique to Christianity, but it does seem a little fallacious, logically speaking.

[Letters]

Isn't that a rather convenient way of shaping the words to suit your pre-existing worldview, rather than using the words to shape your beliefs?
How do you mean?
Science has shown that the days of Genesis aren't literal, but it doesn't change the message of that passage.
Why does it matter how old the earth is? My understanding of that part of the Bible may be different in the light of modern science but it doesn't change "In the beginning God". It just changes when the beginning was.

[Letters]

This could lead down a very pointless cul de sac
That is kind of our thing :d

which is fine when I’ve got plenty of time but I’ve already lost an hour today to a power cut.
Where do you live, the 1970s? Who has power cuts these days?

But I do kind of think these all very much service human appetites, the belief that God put you on earth for a purpose does seem to appeal to that human solipsism, that desire to be important or have a function.
It does. Which doesn't mean that it isn't true (or that it is)


It’s clear that the question of a meaning of life does stretch well beyond the Christian faith.
Well, sure. It's what all religions are about really. This is where I see it as quite distinct from science and thus don't see they're in conflict.


It’s probably just as well that you don’t take a literalist interpretation of Genesis given that people are recorded as living up to 900 years.
Yeah. Someone at church did years ago try and make some argument for why that's all literal but I didn't really buy it.
I'm not sure what I think about Noah, while we're here. I'm happy to believe there was a flood but I don't believe it was a literal global flood in the way the Bible states.

[Letters]

Also

https://metro.co.uk/2024/04/04/physically-healthy-woman-will-euthanised-next-month-20588327/

:rose:

Not sure this should be legal - although I do have some sympathy for the view that some euthanasia should be allowed. Not convinced this is a good use case though.

[HCZ_Reborn]

How do you mean?
Science has shown that the days of Genesis aren't literal, but it doesn't change the message of that passage.
Why does it matter how old the earth is? My understanding of that part of the Bible may be different in the light of modern science but it doesn't change "In the beginning God". It just changes when the beginning was.

The argument (albeit shooting fish in a barrel) is that increased understanding has forced Christianity to go from literal meaning to “well the science isn’t there but the message still has meaning”

It’s the admission that Theology can only exist in broad brush generalities

If I was God, I’d give serious consideration to a re-launch exercise, rather than say no I’m sorry I gave my inspiration for my word to a bunch of semi literate imbeciles….im not doing it again.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Also

https://metro.co.uk/2024/04/04/physically-healthy-woman-will-euthanised-next-month-20588327/

:rose:

Not sure this should be legal - although I do have some sympathy for the view that some euthanasia should be allowed. Not convinced this is a good use case though.

Oh this is quite the thorny topic

The standard view appears to be that this woman has the right to relinquish her life but she doesn’t have the right to solicit the state as an accomplice.

I don’t think there is a clear answer. What I know of suicide and suicide attempts is that they are messy and often botched. And that if this woman genuinely wishes to die it’s probably more ethical that she’s assisted in this. There was some talk a while back about a suicide booth (not the comical suicide booth imagined by Matt Groening in Futurama) but one that would induce hypoxia (oxygen starvation to the brain) and the person would simply use the machine without bringing anyone else into what they intended for themselves.

There’s also the extra moral dimension, are we not compelled to try and keep someone from killing themselves. As a Therapist I have a safeguarding responsibility to disclose anyone openly talking about having plans to end their life (which is markedly different from talking about previous suicide attempts or feeling low or not wanting to carry on but having no plans to act on this). Of course as a therapist what you want to be wary of is anyone who has previously been openly talking about wanting to die, and then suddenly seeming very calm and at peace in the next session…could be nothing, could be they’ve resolved to die and that brings them comfort.

[Letters]

The argument (albeit shooting fish in a barrel) is that increased understanding has forced Christianity to go from literal meaning to “well the science isn’t there but the message still has meaning”
Well, sure. I just don't see why that matters - and I'd ask the same of Christians who try to cling to the literal days by dismissing all the science. What's important here, the thought that we are a creation or when it happened?
The understanding of the latter has been changed by science, I just don't see why it's important.
The former IS the meaning.


It’s the admission that Theology can only exist in broad brush generalities
I'm not sure what that means.


If I was God, I’d give serious consideration to a re-launch exercise, rather than say no I’m sorry I gave my inspiration for my word to a bunch of semi literate imbeciles….im not doing it again.
Doesn't need a relaunch. Science may change our understanding of the mechanics of creation, but the concept that we are a creation and have a purpose is timeless, as is the Gospel message of sacrifice and redemption - which is why those themes have been repeated in countless other stories down the centuries.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Well, sure. I just don't see why that matters - and I'd ask the same of Christians who try to cling to the literal days by dismissing all the science. What's important here, the thought that we are a creation or when it happened?
The understanding of the latter has been changed by science, I just don't see why it's important.
The former IS the meaning.


I'm not sure what that means.


Doesn't need a relaunch. Science may change our understanding of the mechanics of creation, but the concept that we are a creation and have a purpose is timeless, as is the Gospel message of sacrifice and redemption - which is why those themes have been repeated in countless other stories down the centuries.

It depends what you want from it

If the message is it doesn’t matter if it’s apocraphyal or not the idea of self sacrifuce and redemption as an allegorical message is timeless and inspiring it doesn’t really matter.

But Christianity does require you to believe that Jesus literally died for your sins rather than just a case of taking inspiration from the message.

My therapy style is based on Socratic principles of learning through shared dialogue, Socrates is a legendary figure in the very real sense that there’s no actual evidence that Socrates ever existed.

I think it’s fair to say that Christianity requires its followers to believe that not only did Jesus of Nazareth exist but that he was the son of God

I don’t mean that as a critique it’s more a clarification because a lot of your explanation of your belief seems to be rooted in its philosophical wisdom rather than it needing to be manifestly true.

[Niall_Quinn]

Religion deals in revealed truth. By its very nature it cannot avoid conflicting with science. Any religion will consider its message good for all time, and therefore it will naturally contradict science which forever is changing as our understanding changes and development.

I’ve just stopped myself there. Because I think this is where the division lies. If you believe in God (the monotheistic Abrahamic one for the sake of argument) you will believe that God created the universe and thus every scientific concept that comes with that. If you don’t, you believe that Christianity was written by people in Bronze Age Middle East who had almost no understanding of the world around them let alone a cosmological understanding.

Now it’s fair to say whichever one of those explanations is true, and I don’t think you need guess at which one I think is true that Christianity as an institution rather than a belief system has had to adapt to the cultural and scientific changes of an ever changing world

If you read Hitchens God is not Great on Why Religion Poisons everything (slightly antagonistic title :lol:) he speaks fondly of this old lady who was his primary school teacher and how she explained that it was proof of God’s divinity that he made all the plants a restful colour like Green rather than something more strenuous on the eyes. Where as Hitchens as a little boy thought this was plainly nonsense and it was far more likely that the eyes have to adapt to their environment

Science and Religion are one and the same, unless you view them from the perspective of mankind's churches. In which case, of course there is polarity. What does man ever do on a grand scale that doesn't divide? Maybe the Live Aid concert. That was a rare one. Cynical in its own way, behind the scenes, sadly. Dawkins is one of the greatest morons of our time. He's set out to miss the point and prove he's missed it in a thousands ways. It's like some kid saying there are fairies at the bottom of her garden and then all the wise men and Dawkins arrive to analyse the intentions of the fairies or, if as radical as Dawkins, suggest the fairies might not exist. Oh wow, what a fucking revelation. Of course god doesn't exist in the context shoehorned by Dawkins. Listening to that clown drags you a thousand miles in the wrong direction, so far away from the starting point that any point you make thereafter is entirely unrelated. I'd love to stick a knife in the bastard's arse and ask him about the laws of nature, which clearly state he'll bleed. Now write a book about the obvious and make a charlatan's career out of it, why don't you?

I'm very familiar with Darwin at the moment. Literally spend time sitting in the seats he sat in. He did great things. Applied himself in wonderful ways. But it starting to look like he was wrong about everything, as science begins to catch up with what religion knew all along. There are missing pieces that have to be fudged so any of our models work. Webb proved that too and so does his telescope. Eventually it will all coincide, but to hear it you'll have to shut your ears to these churchists and their armies of chanters.

God most definitely exists, in some for or another. Despite Dawkins' entirely irrelevant endeavours. For us to imagine what God is, or what his product stamps all over the universe mean, isn't the work of an Amazon best selling trilogy, it's the endeavour of a species over generations. Dawkins is like an anchor on that progress. A little man with small ideas who looks inwards and then claims he is considering the universe.

[Letters]

I think it’s fair to say that Christianity requires its followers to believe that not only did Jesus of Nazareth exist but that he was the son of God

I don’t mean that as a critique it’s more a clarification because a lot of your explanation of your belief seems to be rooted in its philosophical wisdom rather than it needing to be manifestly true.
You have misunderstood me somewhat.

The Bible has different types of writing in. I do believe the Gospels are eye witness accounts of what occurred.
I believe Jesus existed and was crucified - there's good extra-Biblical evidence for these things. And yes, I believe He was who He claimed and I believe He was literally resurrected. I'm not convinced the church would exist if He wasn't, it seems improbable to me that the disciples would have lived out the rest of their lives and ultimately been killed for something which they'd have known was a lie.

And I believe early Genesis is true too - I believe "In the beginning, God". I would note that for centuries science wasn't convinced that the universe even had a beginning. I believe we are a creation and we were created for a purpose, for relationship with the God who created us. And I believe our rebellion against Him was ultimately dealt with by Jesus.
BUT...I don't believe Genesis 1 and 2 should be read like a scientific text. I don't think it contains scientific truths nor is it intended to. If I'd read it hundreds of years ago I'd probably understand it differently but actually the Bible doesn't say when the beginning was. I don't think it matters and I don't understand why some Christians still try and cling to a literal understanding in the face of all the science. They're missing the point of those chapters.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Fair Enough. It’s not worth me debating you too much on this because actually I have enough humility to believe (and hope) that you understand and can explain your faith far better than I can

I personally think that the crucifixion and resurrection are the greatest examples I can think of about the transience of morality.

From my perspective, the idea that God sent his son as a human sacrifice which even today binds us in a covenant to say “he died for your sins” seems distinctly immoral. It’s telling me I’m bound by something that happened over a thousand years ago in a savage part of the world, and that I’m automatically redeemed by it. The absolute conceit of that feels breath taking to me.

But then again I don’t find Jesus a particularly morally good individual either.


Whilst I don’t hold with the concept of an eye for an eye, I don’t hold with the concept of turn the other cheek. That’s a doormat philosophy, you love your enemies if you like…I’ll look to destroy the individual who makes themselves my enemy. Because there is no sense in understanding and compassion when your enemy sees it as symbolic of your weakness.

But that’s me, I consider pacifism an exercise in unilateral stupidity, and if this stance risks harming others as well then it’s morally indecent too.

[Letters]

From my perspective, the idea that God sent his son as a human sacrifice which even today binds us in a covenant to say “he died for your sins” seems distinctly immoral. It’s telling me I’m bound by something that happened over a thousand years ago in a savage part of the world, and that I’m automatically redeemed by it.
That's an interesting take.
I'd say we're freed by what Jesus did, not bound by it. It's kinda the USP of Christianity.
In most other religions you have to earn your salvation and you're never actually sure if you've done enough.
In Christianity salvation is a gift - it's not automatic, it has to be accepted. Christianity says you can't earn your salvation, you can never do enough to do that. It was bought for you, and Jesus was the only one who could do that because He was and is God and He did it because of His love for us - John 3:16, basically.

You might not believe any of that is true of course, which is fine, but it's a pretty remarkable claim.
Judaism and Islam are all about ceremonies, Christianity is about relationship (or should be, admittedly the high churches are quite wed to their ceremonies too).

[HCZ_Reborn]

That's an interesting take.
I'd say we're freed by what Jesus did, not bound by it. It's kinda the USP of Christianity.
In most other religions you have to earn your salvation and you're never actually sure if you've done enough.
In Christianity salvation is a gift - it's not automatic, it has to be accepted. Christianity says you can't earn your salvation, you can never do enough to do that. It was bought for you, and Jesus was the only one who could do that because He was and is God and He did it because of His love for us - John 3:16, basically.

You might not believe any of that is true of course, which is fine, but it's a pretty remarkable claim.
Judaism and Islam are all about ceremonies, Christianity is about relationship (or should be, admittedly the high churches are quite wed to their ceremonies too).


But from a perspective of freedom of choice it does make far more sense (to me anyway) that you are responsible for your own salvation.


If you by basis of comparison take Enlightenment in the Buddhist sense of the word, to find Nirvana is on you as a spiritual quest but one that no one is likely to achieve in one life time so the concept of reincarnation exists that you have another crack at it.
Dont get me wrong I find that nonsense as well, but actually I find it more morally worthy than to say. Well you were born a sinner but this guy a thousand years ago died an excruciating death to alleviate you of that burden. It’s the ultimate in emotional blackmail. “Look at what this guy did for you, you ungrateful cunt”

[HCZ_Reborn]

https://youtu.be/nIsq1sZwPp4?si=UNnRFzkTdQea3DxF

I accept at this point that I’m largely paraphrasing the Hitchens argument about Jesus

[Letters]

But from a perspective of freedom of choice it does make far more sense (to me anyway) that you are responsible for your own salvation.
Well, you are responsible for it. You just don't have to do anything other than to accept it as a gift.
Is is not also blackmail to make people earn their salvation with no assurance whether you've done enough or not?

[HCZ_Reborn]

Well, you are responsible for it. You just don't have to do anything other than to accept it as a gift.
Is is not also blackmail to make people earn their salvation with no assurance whether you've done enough or not?

Not really. I’m very careful in how I choose my evidence. Whilst I think Buddhism like all faith is pernicious nonsense, it does leave the choice up to you. It’s not offering you torment as an alternative to Nirvana, it’s not saying you must do this…it’s saying if you want to do this this is what you need to do.

It’s a gift that’s been foist on me though, I’m being told that I need to be grateful for something that happened a millennium ago and was an act of extreme presumption at best.

[Letters]

It’s a gift that’s been foist on me though.
And yet there you are not accepting it.
Obviously that's because you don't believe any of it, but the point is you have made a choice.

[HCZ_Reborn]

And yet there you are not accepting it.
Obviously that's because you don't believe any of it, but the point is you have made a choice.

The point would be that assuming this were true

That through the power of God and Jesus’s sacrifice I have been freed to say what I want about him

And that I should accept this as an extraordinary gift of generosity. No fuck that, it’s the mark of a tyrant to demand gratitude for the freedoms they are allowing me. Well my freedom should not be dependent on your permission

[Letters]

You have freedom either way dude.
A tyrant wouldn't give us that freedom.

[HCZ_Reborn]

You have freedom either way dude.
A tyrant wouldn't give us that freedom.

I think you’re misunderstanding how tyranny works

A freedom is not a tyrants to give

[Letters]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-68764301

Very high up on my bucket list to see one of these

[WMUG]

There's one going over northern Spain in a couple of years.

[Letters]

There's one going over northern Spain in a couple of years.

Yes, I saw that. Obviously prices will be sky (pun not really intended) high, but once in a lifetime and all that.

When I was at school we talked excitedly about the one in '99.
Then it happened. And it was a little underwhelming.
I was working in central London at the time so I went in to St James' Park. It did get quite dark, I remember the street lights coming on, but while it was close it wasn't total and it's not the same.

[Marc Overmars]

I remember the 99 one. I was at a summer club and we were all rushed inside just before it happened and the curtains were shut. The way the adults spoke to us it was like we’d all die if we were outside. :lol:

[Mac76]

I remember the 99 one. I was at a summer club and we were all rushed inside just before it happened and the curtains were shut. The way the adults spoke to us it was like we’d all die if we were outside. :lol:

that's bizarre, what sort of summer club was it, some kind of doom cult? :lol:

[Letters]

Aye, that's a bit weird.
Maybe they didn't want everyone looking straight at the sun and blinding themselves :unsure:

[HCZ_Reborn]

https://youtu.be/_2p1Q3vDnfA?si=1axOhfH1BAdUIKC1

If you play a good song at a concert, do you get sweets after?

Yeah, sort of

[Marc Overmars]

Aye, that's a bit weird.
Maybe they didn't want everyone looking straight at the sun and blinding themselves :unsure:

Yeah pretty much. Kids do stupid things after all.

[Letters]

Peter Higgs has died*

I wonder if they'll say mass at his funeral

:rimshot:

*another one for the "I didn't know he was still alive" folder.

[Mac76]

That's a shame but still, 94's a decent innings

[HCZ_Reborn]

Peter Higgs has died*

I wonder if they'll say mass at his funeral

:rimshot:

*another one for the "I didn't know he was still alive" folder.

Boson will be heartbroken

[WMUG]

Trying to unionise my workplace. Should be fun.

[Letters]

Trying to unionise my workplace. Should be fun.

How do you tell a plumber from a chemist?
Ask them to pronounce “unionise”

[WMUG]

How do you tell a plumber from a chemist?
Ask them to pronounce “unionise”

https://media.makeameme.org/created/your-joke-is-cddd1b923e.jpg

[Letters]

:(

:getcoat:

[WMUG]

:(

:getcoat:

:lol:

:console:

[Mac76]

How do you tell a plumber from a chemist?
Ask them to pronounce “unionise”

I had to look that up :) - where i saw the definition it was spelt 'unionized' but that might just be a US site or something

[Letters]

Aye, I think it's a US joke.
Like all my "material", it's stolen :lol:

[Letters]

Why do the good always die so young? :rose:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68792486

[Letters]

https://m.youtube.com/shorts/ArTwYczMuDQ

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68798882

[HCZ_Reborn]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-australia-68805458

Gosh, I wonder what religion this guy followed

[Letters]

Oh good. I see Iran have joined the party.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Oh good. I see Iran have joined the party.

What do you mean joined the party?

Who do you think helped Hamas bring about October 7th

Who do you think armed the Houthis to attack British and American cargo ships in the Gulf of Aden?

This is the same petulance that came about when the Americans took out Quasem Suilemani. The one thing Trump did in office that actually if anything he doesn’t get enough credit for.

Only this time, this giant sulk should have consequences and the equivalent of Iran being sent to its room without dinner needs to be enacted.

Regimes like this often engage in aggression when they are losing their grip on their own people. Idi Amin started a war with Tanzania and got his arse handed to him as a result. Same with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

[Letters]

I do not have much of an opinion about any of this.
Other than this is an escalation and I think that is a bad thing

[Mac76]

What do you mean joined the party?

Who do you think helped Hamas bring about October 7th

Who do you think armed the Houthis to attack British and American cargo ships in the Gulf of Aden?

This is the same petulance that came about when the Americans took out Quasem Suilemani. The one thing Trump did in office that actually if anything he doesn’t get enough credit for.

Only this time, this giant sulk should have consequences and the equivalent of Iran being sent to its room without dinner needs to be enacted.

Regimes like this often engage in aggression when they are losing their grip on their own people. Idi Amin started a war with Tanzania and got his arse handed to him as a result. Same with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

Iraq was an isolated secular state without nuclear capability, they didn't even have those mythical weapons that could hit us in 45 minutes

Iran is a nuclear Islamic state, I hope you're right that the leadership may be losing control but even then people can do dangerous things in those situations

[HCZ_Reborn]

Iraq was an isolated secular state without nuclear capability, they didn't even have those mythical weapons that could hit us in 45 minutes

Iraq is a nuclear Islamic state, I hope you're right that the leadership may be losing control but even then people can do dangerous things in those situations

It wasn’t really a secular country by the time the second war happened. This is what happens in dictatorial regimes, the dictator becomes religious in his elderly years (like the Sultan of Brunei has).

The whole WMD thing skirts over the fact that Iraq was a breadbasket state that became a basket case , where Iraqi leftists had begged us for years to get rid of Saddam. If you ever read The Republic of Fear by Kanan Mikaya, you’d understand just how viciously evil the Baathist control of Iraq and the damage done to it by the gangster family of Saddam was.

We armed the Iraqis in their war against Iran, for me that makes us responsible and Bush snr had the option to topple Saddam once he was evicted from Kuwait…he chose not to.

In your last sentence I assume you’ve mistyped Iran as Iraq but either way you’re wrong, whilst there’s been Uranium enrichment going on in Iran for decades, if Iran had the capability to develop nuclear weapons you’d know about it.


God I’m going to end up defending that obese moron Trump again, but he was absolutely right to tear up the nuclear deal which unfroze the Iranian oil profits. What exactly did that achieve, it did nothing to curb its behaviour. This idea that you can normalise relations with rogue states like this which do dreadful things to its own people and sponsor terrorism globally is an utterly stupid one.

It’s where left and right are equally bone headed. You can’t do it with Iran and you can’t do it with Saudi Arabia. Listened to an interview with Condaleeza Rice who decided to act as a fluffer for MBS. They’ve learned nothing, you can’t be friends with a Scorpion because it will sting you even if it’s not in its own interests to do so, because that’s its nature.


If there is a global war, we’ve brought it on ourselves with the laxity we’ve shown parts of the world by enabling them to show contempt for our values. Madness and stupidity

[HCZ_Reborn]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-australia-68805458

Gosh, I wonder what religion this guy followed

So it’s only fair to acknowledge that I got this wrong, the guy wasn’t a jihadist he was just nuts


A distinction without a difference

[Mac76]

It wasn’t really a secular country by the time the second war happened. This is what happens in dictatorial regimes, the dictator becomes religious in his elderly years (like the Sultan of Brunei has).

The whole WMD thing skirts over the fact that Iraq was a breadbasket state that became a basket case , where Iraqi leftists had begged us for years to get rid of Saddam. If you ever read The Republic of Fear by Kanan Mikaya, you’d understand just how viciously evil the Baathist control of Iraq and the damage done to it by the gangster family of Saddam was.

We armed the Iraqis in their war against Iran, for me that makes us responsible and Bush snr had the option to topple Saddam once he was evicted from Kuwait…he chose not to.

In your last sentence I assume you’ve mistyped Iran as Iraq but either way you’re wrong, whilst there’s been Uranium enrichment going on in Iran for decades, if Iran had the capability to develop nuclear weapons you’d know about it.


God I’m going to end up defending that obese moron Trump again, but he was absolutely right to tear up the nuclear deal which unfroze the Iranian oil profits. What exactly did that achieve, it did nothing to curb its behaviour. This idea that you can normalise relations with rogue states like this which do dreadful things to its own people and sponsor terrorism globally is an utterly stupid one.

It’s where left and right are equally bone headed. You can’t do it with Iran and you can’t do it with Saudi Arabia. Listened to an interview with Condaleeza Rice who decided to act as a fluffer for MBS. They’ve learned nothing, you can’t be friends with a Scorpion because it will sting you even if it’s not in its own interests to do so, because that’s its nature.


If there is a global war, we’ve brought it on ourselves with the laxity we’ve shown parts of the world by enabling them to show contempt for our values. Madness and stupidity


Agreed on most of that

yes i did mean Iran and from what i can see, it's able to develop the material for nuclear weapons and is close to developing the hardware https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/04/10/iran-nuclear-bomb-iaea-fordow/

[HCZ_Reborn]

Agreed on most of that

yes i did mean Iran and from what i can see, it's able to develop the material for nuclear weapons and is close to developing the hardware https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/04/10/iran-nuclear-bomb-iaea-fordow/

The Washington Post? Democracy dies in Darkness yet there is absolutely no irony in putting our article behind a paywall

Iran is absolutely on a pathway to developing nuclear weapons and despite the silly dovish approach taken by the article, the nuclear deal did sod all to prevent that.

Personally I’d rather Israel didn’t have nuclear weapons either, but when your country is controlled by messianic nihilists like the Ayatollahs you absolutely don’t want them to have that kind of destructive capability. It’s bad enough the belligerence between India and Pakistan when they both have weapons of that kind.


My preference would be for an internal revolution to get rid of this evil regime, unfortunately it’s not just the brutality inflicted by the IRPG that prevents this, it’s the fact that outside of Tehran the regimes hardline religiosity is kind of popular. Although I doubt that extends to their clandestine behaviour in the region that could bring destruction to their doorstep.


But unfortunately we’ve got no choice. Whilst we were partly responsible for the situation the country is in now by fucking around with Mossadegh to stop him nationalising the oil production and putting the Shah in….no one has made the Iranian government behave in this way. It’s even got itself involved in a border skirmish with Pakistan.

So for all Biden’s reluctance to get involved, we are involved.

[Mac76]

The Washington Post? Democracy dies in Darkness yet there is absolutely no irony in putting our article behind a paywall


I don't subscribe to it but i can see the whole article

[HCZ_Reborn]

I don't subscribe to it but i can see the whole article

Probably because you haven’t read any other WP article recently. This is how these online articles work, they give you a minimum number for free and then they put up barriers.

Dont get me wrong, we’ve always had to pay for newspapers. But I just won’t subscribe. For me the easiest solution would be to create a media paywall account where you can pay a nominal fee for which article you want to read rather than subscribing to the entire outlet.

WP is very hit and miss though it’s less of a hot mess than the NY Times. USA today probably stands up as the best American newspaper, but also like The New Yorker and whilst the Atlantic has sunk there are still some decent contributors to it (like David Frum)

[Letters]

So it’s only fair to acknowledge that I got this wrong, the guy wasn’t a jihadist he was just nuts


A distinction without a difference

:lol:

I was going to pick you up on this as I’d heard no indication he was a terrorist.

I think the difference is all jihadists are nuts, but not all people who are nuts are jihadists.

[Niall_Quinn]

LOL, what are you lot up to? Still arguing over whether Muslim nutters should be allowed in the country? Missing the point. NONE of them should be here. Did you see the poll where 42% of the cunts want Sharia law? Put that through Google translate to tell you what it actually means. These lot are outbreeding civilised people at a rate of 3-1. So what do you thing the population count and poll will be in 10 years? Or 20? Want some smelly bloke with lice in his beard coming down the road and telling you your wife has to wear a bedsheet? Well keep on being toleranta moron. Kick 'em out now, before it is too late.

[Niall_Quinn]

The Washington Post? Democracy dies in Darkness yet there is absolutely no irony in putting our article behind a paywall

Iran is absolutely on a pathway to developing nuclear weapons and despite the silly dovish approach taken by the article, the nuclear deal did sod all to prevent that.

Personally I’d rather Israel didn’t have nuclear weapons either, but when your country is controlled by messianic nihilists like the Ayatollahs you absolutely don’t want them to have that kind of destructive capability. It’s bad enough the belligerence between India and Pakistan when they both have weapons of that kind.


My preference would be for an internal revolution to get rid of this evil regime, unfortunately it’s not just the brutality inflicted by the IRPG that prevents this, it’s the fact that outside of Tehran the regimes hardline religiosity is kind of popular. Although I doubt that extends to their clandestine behaviour in the region that could bring destruction to their doorstep.


But unfortunately we’ve got no choice. Whilst we were partly responsible for the situation the country is in now by fucking around with Mossadegh to stop him nationalising the oil production and putting the Shah in….no one has made the Iranian government behave in this way. It’s even got itself involved in a border skirmish with Pakistan.

So for all Biden’s reluctance to get involved, we are involved.

Iran HAS to develop nuclear weapons or they are the next Iraq. What choice do they have? I have zero time for the bastards, but I can see things from their point of view. American is ALWAYS the problem. If they didn't go around the world interfering in everyone else's affairs and backing it up with "Shock and Genocide" the rest f the world would find a balance. But how can you balance out a monster like the profit hungry, warmonger American military industrial complex? They are going to start wars everywhere, for profit. And if you happen to be in their crosshairs as an easy profit stream, what can you do to counter that? It's obvious. Make yourself a hard target and let them go elsewhere. I support Iran having nuclear weapons FROM THIER POINT OF VIEW. I hate the idea from my point of view. But, you know, Americans. What are you going to do? Fucking Americans, right?

[HCZ_Reborn]

Iran HAS to develop nuclear weapons or they are the next Iraq. What choice do they have? I have zero time for the bastards, but I can see things from their point of view. American is ALWAYS the problem. If they didn't go around the world interfering in everyone else's affairs and backing it up with "Shock and Genocide" the rest f the world would find a balance. But how can you balance out a monster like the profit hungry, warmonger American military industrial complex? They are going to start wars everywhere, for profit. And if you happen to be in their crosshairs as an easy profit stream, what can you do to counter that? It's obvious. Make yourself a hard target and let them go elsewhere. I support Iran having nuclear weapons FROM THIER POINT OF VIEW. I hate the idea from my point of view. But, you know, Americans. What are you going to do? Fucking Americans, right?

As I said to you on the football thread, your mind is in a historical loop.


America is quite clearly becoming more and more withdrawn. Thus pulling out of Afghanistan and leaving us to deal with the bastards turning up on our doorstep. The reason? Because they don’t need the oil anymore because of fracking.


Your buddy Trump even saw the absolute futility of trying to reason with these scumbags.

[Niall_Quinn]

As I said to you on the football thread, your mind is in a historical loop.


America is quite clearly becoming more and more withdrawn. Thus pulling out of Afghanistan and leaving us to deal with the bastards turning up on our doorstep. The reason? Because they don’t need the oil anymore because of fracking.


Your buddy Trump even saw the absolute futility of trying to reason with these scumbags.

NO!

Don't try to divert.

What if YOU were Iranian in Iran.

Now just answer the question truthfully instead of evading.

Rebuke my point instead of advertising your own point. It's called DEBATE.

The "your buddy" thing just makes you look weak. Never resort to that bullshit. Make your point without it. If it has merit it will be impactful. Trump is not my buddy, he neither knows nor cares I am alive. BUT, he does provide a brake for the insanity that has been occurring. So yes, I'm 100% behind Trump until we can find an actual leader, which (because of people like you), we will never find.

[HCZ_Reborn]

If I was Iranian in Iran I’d want shot of the theocracy that’s dominated my country since 1979

There are 90 million people all told they have to hate Israel, why? Because Israel’s existence is a threat to the self esteem of the war like prowess of Islam. They don’t give a fuck about Israel…Iranian dissidents have actually actively supported Israel.

They act like they do not out of self defence but because of the hideous religious devotion which tells them that to get into paradise they have to make their contribution towards the restoration of the caliphate.

As I explained earlier, the American right have it just as wrong. They support the Al Saud gangster family despite how it’s propagated Wahhabism throughout the Arab world and sponsor Sunni jihadism.

The left are the useful idiots for the Shia in Iran and Lebanon


And I’m glad you regard me as the problem, you absolutely should

[The Wengerbabies]

So it’s only fair to acknowledge that I got this wrong, the guy wasn’t a jihadist he was just nuts


A distinction without a difference

Was a reasonable assumption. I made the same one/

[Letters]

Was a reasonable assumption. I made the same one/

Of course. The difference is HCZ had the integrity and honesty to admit his error. You never do.

The latest update is it sounds like he was targeting women. Maybe some incel?

[HCZ_Reborn]

Of course. The difference is HCZ had the integrity and honesty to admit his error. You never do.

The latest update is it sounds like he was targeting women. Maybe some incel?

I hate to go into bat for Incels because they are quite pitiable creatures, but I think that a mistake has been made in trying to conflate misogynistic violence with Incel culture.


Incel is a portmanteau of involuntary celibate, they generally are a) depressive b) show a high correlation of being on the spectrum and c) far more likely to do harm unto themselves than others.

Feminism likes to brand these men as toxic and in a way they are, but the likes of Elliot Rodger wasn’t in anyway linked to the Incel community and nor was Jake Davidson.

Do I think there is a ramping up of toxicity towards women? For sure. From that disgusting oily closeted homosexual and pimp Andrew Tate and other revolting scrotes who treat women in the same fashion one might regard a used car.


But that is a completely separate phenomena, Incels are pathetic and they are trading in defeatism and self pity.


Stabbing up women is a whole different ball game

[The Wengerbabies]

Of course. The difference is HCZ had the integrity and honesty to admit his error. You never do.

The latest update is it sounds like he was targeting women. Maybe some incel?

As sure as night follows day a religion of peace ambassador has brutally attacked a priest during sermon in Australia, stabbing him multiple times in the face.

[Letters]

So?

[The Wengerbabies]

So?

I just find it somewhat morbidly amusing the day after hajji cocksucking libtards were mocking anyone who jumped to the obvious conclusion, the obvious conclusion happened.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Cuts both ways though doesn’t it. The Spanish Train bombing in Madrid in 2004, the government tried to blame it on ETA but turns out it was Islamists

There is something to be said for not jumping to conclusions. Just as there’s something to be said for understanding why people would assume it was a Muzza

[Letters]

I just find it somewhat morbidly amusing the day after hajji cocksucking libtards were mocking anyone who jumped to the obvious conclusion, the obvious conclusion happened.

It was some 15 year old kid. They haven't released his name.
You've just jumped to the exact same conclusion :lol:
Possibly correctly, but that's not at all clear right now. It certainly wasn't some well organised terrorist attack, it was some kid with a knife.

Large scale terrorist attacks admittedly, I probably jump to the same conclusion. Some loon with a gun or knife, generally not.

[The Wengerbabies]

It was some 15 year old kid. They haven't released his name.
You've just jumped to the exact same conclusion :lol:
Possibly correctly, but that's not at all clear right now. It certainly wasn't some well organised terrorist attack, it was some kid with a knife.

Large scale terrorist attacks admittedly, I probably jump to the same conclusion. Some loon with a gun or knife, generally not.

He was asking for Alan's Snackbar

[HCZ_Reborn]

It was some 15 year old kid. They haven't released his name.
You've just jumped to the exact same conclusion :lol:
Possibly correctly, but that's not at all clear right now. It certainly wasn't some well organised terrorist attack, it was some kid with a knife.

Large scale terrorist attacks admittedly, I probably jump to the same conclusion. Some loon with a gun or knife, generally not.

By look of it, it’s an internal feud between Syrian Muslim and Syrian orthodox Christian community

The Sunnis and Shias of Syria don’t even like the Alawites let alone believers of other Faiths

[Letters]

He was asking for Alan's Snackbar

:lol:

You can have that one, that's quite good.

[Letters]

By look of it, it’s an internal feud between Syrian Muslim and Syrian orthodox Christian community

The Sunnis and Shias of Syria don’t even like the Alawites let alone believers of other Faiths

The Judean People's Front? Wankers!

[Letters]

Oh don't you start, Riley! :lol:

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/rachel-riley-twitter-sydney-channel-4-b2528755.html

[HCZ_Reborn]

Oh don't you start, Riley! :lol:

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/rachel-riley-twitter-sydney-channel-4-b2528755.html

She immediately retracted this after suggesting that it might not be a good idea for scummy cunts to chant globalise the intifada when the actual intifada involved Palestinians coming into Israel and stabbing people up.

People that are calling her racist are people that are still sore because she identified their hero Jeremy Corbyn as the rancid little toad that he is

[Letters]

Wengerbabies and NQ are presumably high fiving somewhere

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68731366

[HCZ_Reborn]

Wengerbabies and NQ are presumably high fiving somewhere

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68731366

Anyone who believes in secularism should be high fiving


I wouldn’t give a fuck if it was Islam, Christianity or Hare fucking Krishnas…keep it off school premises

[Letters]

I dunno. I’m in two minds.
She’s not saying she wants the whole school to join in, it’s just a private ceremony which to her is an important part of her faith.

You could make a reasonable argument that children should be forced to take part in religious ceremonies at school, but I’m not sure it’s reasonable that they should be prevented from doing so.

[HCZ_Reborn]

I dunno. I’m in two minds.
She’s not saying she wants the whole school to join in, it’s just a private ceremony which to her is an important part of her faith.

You could make a reasonable argument that children should be forced to take part in religious ceremonies at school, but I’m not sure it’s reasonable that they should be prevented from doing so.

The point is that to pray during the school day means you are requiring special treatment, the Michaela school is in Wembley where there is a big Muslim community and yet only this child has sought this privilege. If they want to pray they can do so at any time during the day when not at school.
I don’t believe the state should cater for religion in anyway, it should be a matter of individuals to find time for their religion outside of school - teachers and students alike. So this for me would include no wearing of the hijab, no religious iconography to be worn of any description. And RE to be a case of comparative religious studies, not a chance to inculcate pupils in prayer.
If we even permit faith based schools to exist (something I’m highly dubious about) they absolutely should get no Tax exemptions