"Currants Bw..."

[Niall_Quinn]

Bloody hell, something has just popped up and told me that my computer has been infected with a virus or trojan agh what do I do?

Depends. Is is a system window that popped? A browser window? An AV warning? Something else?

If it's a browser window then 99% chance it's a fake message trying to get you to download a "solution" which will be the real virus or trojan. I assume you are running some sort of AV software and keeping that up to date? If not, then don't worry about viruses and trojans as you already have plenty and one more won't hurt. But assuming you take basic steps to keep these things out, force quit the browser (CTRL-ALT-DEL), select the browser and terminate it. Start the browser again, go to a different site, do you still get the warning? If yes, the quit the browser again and run an AV scan. If no then it was a fake alert.

If you already clicked that alert and downloaded something then unplug the computer, put it in a box and use a pen, paper and a telephone instead.

[Letters]

Bloody hell, something has just popped up and told me that my computer has been infected with a virus or trojan agh what do I do?

Wait for a nice chap from India to call you and offer to fix it. He'll sort you out :good:

[Niall_Quinn]

Wait for a nice chap from India to call you and offer to fix it. He'll sort you out :good:

Racist, sexist.

[Letters]

None of my best friends are black :sulk:

[Goonermerree]

Depends. Is is a system window that popped? A browser window? An AV warning? Something else?

If it's a browser window then 99% chance it's a fake message trying to get you to download a "solution" which will be the real virus or trojan. I assume you are running some sort of AV software and keeping that up to date? If not, then don't worry about viruses and trojans as you already have plenty and one more won't hurt. But assuming you take basic steps to keep these things out, force quit the browser (CTRL-ALT-DEL), select the browser and terminate it. Start the browser again, go to a different site, do you still get the warning? If yes, the quit the browser again and run an AV scan. If no then it was a fake alert.

If you already clicked that alert and downloaded something then unplug the computer, put it in a box and use a pen, paper and a telephone instead.

I went onto my usual streaming site and was asked to plug adobe in or something, I'm a dumb ass and thought I was clicking that off, but then got the message. Nothing untoward has happened yet, like other pop up or slow browser. If I go back onto the same site the same message is there where the video should be. I just closed the browser. that time.

[Goonermerree]

Wait for a nice chap from India to call you and offer to fix it. He'll sort you out :good:

Yeah right!

[LDG]

Bloody hell, something has just popped up and told me that my computer has been infected with a virus or trojan agh what do I do?

Have you tried turning it off and turning it back on again?

[GP]

I went onto my usual streaming site and was asked to plug adobe in or something, I'm a dumb ass and thought I was clicking that off, but then got the message. Nothing untoward has happened yet, like other pop up or slow browser. If I go back onto the same site the same message is there where the video should be. I just closed the browser. that time.

Sounds like you'll be fine. Best send me over your credit card numbers just to be sure.

[Goonermerree]

Sounds like you'll be fine. Best send me over your credit card numbers just to be sure.

Well I will, I'm that gullible.:unsure:

[Niall_Quinn]

Have you tried turning it off and turning it back on again?

Shut up! You'll put all us computer bods out of business with loose talk like that.

[adzzzbatch]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UE_Q1pprEg

[Goonermerree]

And we're back!

[Niall_Quinn]

This is trolling at its finest:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3959400/Donald-Trump-Nigel-Farage-great-job-Britains-US-ambassador.html

Taking the Hillary out and putting the hilarity back into politics. Trump :bow:

:haha:

[Letters]

He is entertaining, I'll give him that. Would just rather he wasn't in charge of the most powerful country in the world is all.

[Niall_Quinn]

He is entertaining, I'll give him that. Would just rather he wasn't in charge of the most powerful country in the world is all.

It's about time these politicians caught up with the rest of us and stopped taking themselves seriously.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

indeed maybe Theresa May could do a Gilbert and Sullivan rendition next time she's at the dispatch box, that'll have people clapping like seals.

Jeremy Corbyn can then do his take on Sean Connery as the Russian Submarine commander in Hunt for Red October where they sing the soviet national anthem.

[Niall_Quinn]

indeed maybe Theresa May could do a Gilbert and Sullivan rendition next time she's at the dispatch box, that'll have people clapping like seals.

Jeremy Corbyn can then do his take on Sean Connery as the Russian Submarine commander in Hunt for Red October where they sing the soviet national anthem.

Could work. Could make people smile or laugh instead of throwing stuff at the TV or switching it off in disgust.

My preference would be phone-in evictions. A random vote to eject one member of the house each week depending on how shitty and contrived the audience thinks their participation has been. Ant and Dec could waltz in on a Friday and do the business.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I'd prefer text votes (no charge, there has been quite enough of that) in order to vote on which Infantile word a politician has to work into their speech

Text 01 for Bum, Text 02 for Flid, Text 03 for Mong

[Goonermerree]

Thomas Mair found guilty, bastard. He will be locked away for life. Jo Cox seemed like a good woman, with a promising political career. Coward

[Letters]

I have no idea why he protested his innocence really.

[Letters]

In other news. Darwin award nominee du jour (assuming he never bred)

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38073919

He's choked on more balls than your mum.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I have no idea why he protested his innocence really.

The same reason he killed Jo Cox, to get attention

Correction - He didn't, he refused to enter a plea and that would make by default a non guilty plea

[Niall_Quinn]

Thanksgiving Day in California :doh:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2016/11/24/JS114498551-la-traffic-jam-2-large_trans++NJjoeBT78QIaYdkJdEY4CvixAe7QffzLLOJK8 oyLw4w.png

[GP]

I have no idea why he protested his innocence really.

Because he's fucking mental.

[Letters]

Yes, that could be it :lol:

[Power n Glory]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/24/daily-mail-jailing-jo-coxs-murderer-front-page

Good question.

Been quite a few neo Nazi nutters letting loose in recent years. It's terrorism but there seems to be a double standard when it comes to using that word.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/24/daily-mail-jailing-jo-coxs-murderer-front-page

Good question.

Been quite a few neo Nazi nutters letting loose in recent years. It's terrorism but there seems to be a double standard when it comes to using that word.

I didnt regard the killing of Lee Rigby or Jo Cox as acts of terrorism, I consider them both acts of senseless murder perpetrated by brain dead atavistic losers who above all sought notoriety, and the so called "political motivation" might have governed who they killed but largely was a justification for a need to act violently.

Of course you can make that argument about all terrorist acts, but ultimately I think what's important is to deny these individuals credence to be regarded as political martyrs. They are maladjusted sociopaths who deserve punishment for their brutality and should not be seen as worthy of any great analysis.

I remember how Anders Breivik was determined not to be found insane so that his rationale could not be dismissed, I think any such individual apprehended alive should be found insane, their so called grievances should be dismissed.

[Power n Glory]

I didnt regard the killing of Lee Rigby or Jo Cox as acts of terrorism, I consider them both acts of senseless murder perpetrated by brain dead atavistic losers who above all sought notoriety, and the so called "political motivation" might have governed who they killed but largely was a justification for a need to act violently.

Of course you can make that argument about all terrorist acts, but ultimately I think what's important is to deny these individuals credence to be regarded as political martyrs. They are maladjusted sociopaths who deserve punishment for their brutality and should not be seen as worthy of any great analysis.

I'm talking more of a double standard with reporting, especially the Daily Mail, but I hear your point.

[Niall_Quinn]

Daily Mail, for once, got this spot on. That's not to say the shit it chose to stick on its front page was worth anything, it had roughly the same value as this Cox person which is none at all. I don't mean that in a personal sense, every life matters (even white ones), but this effort by propagandists like the Guardian to turn an unremarkable person into a martyr is contemptible and if the Mail has managed to find some proportion amid the hysteria then that's good. Besides, the maggots masquerading as journalists down at the Guardian wouldn't know a terrorist or a racist if a guy called Tony Blair walked up to them, admitted he'd killed hundreds of thousands of brown people on the back of a crackpot political ideology, and boasted he'd do it again. Fortunately we won't have to put up with this horribly right wing piece of shit newspaper for much longer as its circulation and advertising is falling off a cliff. With a bit of luck we won't have to put up with the Daily Mail either.

[Power n Glory]

I'm starting to think NQ should be on some sort of nutter watchlist as well. :lol:

[Niall_Quinn]

I'm starting to think NQ should be on some sort of nutter watchlist as well. :lol:

Give it time, we'll get there eventually. Small steps.

Anyway, St Jo Cox - what's the deal? Why is she in any way, shape or form worthy of comment over and above any other murder victim? Because political hacks want to spin their agendas off her corpse? Is that it, or is this woman noteworthy in some other way?

Meanwhile, "normal" people are fighting each other for places in the queue as they brandish the remnants of their overtaxed labour in the hope of consuming more shit they don't need. Nah, I'm not the crazy guy. I just look that way in a world full of crazies.

[Power n Glory]

Ahh, Black Friday. They're trying to stir up the same craze over here.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Actually I'm minded to side with NQ (not with everything he said obviously). But in the sense that I'm sure Jo Cox was a nice enough person, a good mother to her kids and someone who was loved by people......but there are plenty of people we might say that of. Would there be this beatification if she wasn't a politician?.

If an ordinary woman had been murdered in the streets of course it would have reached the national media but would it have been treated with the same reverence, would the same armchair psychoanalysis have been given to Thomas Muir?.

And even beyond that consideration it is established that media attention to these type of acts only tend to encourage further such acts, because of this obsession to be a somebody whether for good reasons or for ill.

[Goonermerree]

She died because of the job she was doing and she was on her way to do that job. Nobody should die like that, but when a public servant is killed because someone disagrees with her views it is a big deal. There would be no politicians left is this were the norm.

I do understand though, that giving them too much air time is furthering whatever cause they have. I think that's why a lot of new outlets featured her rather than him. He must have been devastated when the judge wouldn't let him address the court at the end of the trial.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

She died because of the job she was doing and she was on her way to do that job. Nobody should die like that, but when a public servant is killed because someone disagrees with her views it is a big deal. There would be no politicians left is this were the norm.

I do understand though, that giving them too much air time is furthering whatever cause they have. I think that's why a lot of new outlets featured her rather than him. He must have been devastated when the judge wouldn't let him address the court at the end of the trial.

That's the problem though, the more a bigger deal is made of it. The more attractive the prospect of murdering public servants as a way of sending a "political message". It should have been treated as an ordinary murder and Thomas Muir as a loser with nothing to say.

But the media want to sensationalise, the same way they did when they released the video of Michael Adebelajo talking to the camera at the scene of Lee Rigbys killing.

[Goonermerree]

That's the problem though, the more a bigger deal is made of it. The more attractive the prospect of murdering public servants as a way of sending a "political message". It should have been treated as an ordinary murder and Thomas Muir as a loser with nothing to say.

But the media want to sensationalise, the same way they did when they released the video of Michael Adebelajo talking to the camera at the scene of Lee Rigbys killing.

I didn't see that, but that is akin to the judge letting Mair have his say at the end of the trial, shouldln't have been allowed.

[Power n Glory]

As said, double standards in the press but that's nothing new. Swap 'Muir' for 'Mohammad' and I'm sure more papers would focus on the killers background.

[Niall_Quinn]

It's all just another demonstration of the "equality" this nation stands for (or puts up with).

When one of "them" dies then we weep. When one of us dies, well there's tax due. Pay up!

Any anyway, do politicians still think it was a good idea to slash mental care facilities and social support and throw a bunch of nutters into the streets to fend for themselves? There are so many questions we could be asking about this incident but here's what Jo Cox actually amounts to, and I hope her family tells everyone to fuck off.

Left Wing: Saint Cox, Mother of Liberty. Murdered by a right wing racist.

Right Wing: Saint Cox, but only because we want to be seen to be doing the "right thing". A sad consequence of all these immigrants coming over here, taking our jobs.

Take a moment to be honest and tell me I'm wrong.

And as for the Guardian lecturing other legacy news outlets on omission. The devil is keeping a seat warm for these hypocritical bastards.

[Niall_Quinn]

I didn't see that, but that is akin to the judge letting Mair have his say at the end of the trial, shouldln't have been allowed.

Why not? It's just as much his court as the judges. People forget that. These are OUR courts too and we have a right to be heard in them and they have an obligation to hear. It's the principle that's important, not the content.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

It's all just another demonstration of the "equality" this nation stands for (or puts up with).

When one of "them" dies then we weep. When one of us dies, well there's tax due. Pay up!

Any anyway, do politicians still think it was a good idea to slash mental care facilities and social support and throw a bunch of nutters into the streets to fend for themselves? There are so many questions we could be asking about this incident but here's what Jo Cox actually amounts to, and I hope her family tells everyone to fuck off.

Left Wing: Saint Cox, Mother of Liberty. Murdered by a right wing racist.

Right Wing: Saint Cox, but only because we want to be seen to be doing the "right thing". A sad consequence of all these immigrants coming over here, taking our jobs.

Take a moment to be honest and tell me I'm wrong.

And as for the Guardian lecturing other legacy news outlets on omission. The devil is keeping a seat warm for these hypocritical bastards.

The only issue I take with what you've said, is to equate it with Mental Health issues

Whilst I am quite happy for people like Mair and Adebalajo to be found not guilty by reason of insanity. In the conventional sense neither are mentally ill. They aren't victims of an uncaring political system that infantilises their behaviour, they are maladjusted sociopaths and no amount of treatment would prevent what they did.

I totally agree that the cutting in funding to mental health services is a disgrace but that's because it leaves people vulnerable and unable to lead independent lives not because it churns out n'er do wells like Mair.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Why not? It's just as much his court as the judges. People forget that. These are OUR courts too and we have a right to be heard in them and they have an obligation to hear. It's the principle that's important, not the content.

He may have the right to speak, but no one is obliged to listen

[Niall_Quinn]

He may have the right to speak, but no one is obliged to listen

The court is, it must. That's the whole point of the court.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

The court is, it must. That's the whole point of the court.

My point is more, the media shouldn't report anything he says, in fact it would be better in events like this that the whole court proceedings are treated as off limits

Mair killed Cox to give himself a platform, if he's granted one.....than we are rewarding him for brutality not punishing him.

It's the same as when the American media indulged Ted Bundy with his self-serving homily about how the distribution of violent pornography was responsible for his crimes, and that potentially any young man could have made the choices he did.

[Power n Glory]

That's the problem though, the more a bigger deal is made of it. The more attractive the prospect of murdering public servants as a way of sending a "political message". It should have been treated as an ordinary murder and Thomas Muir as a loser with nothing to say.

But the media want to sensationalise, the same way they did when they released the video of Michael Adebelajo talking to the camera at the scene of Lee Rigbys killing.

It's not quite the same.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

It's not quite the same.

It's exactly the same. by giving them any public airing it's a form of legitimising their actions. If you want your opinions heard controversial or not, you should not expect that committing brutal violence should be a viable tool to allow this.

[Niall_Quinn]

The only issue I take with what you've said, is to equate it with Mental Health issues

Whilst I am quite happy for people like Mair and Adebalajo to be found not guilty by reason of insanity. In the conventional sense neither are mentally ill. They aren't victims of an uncaring political system that infantilises their behaviour, they are maladjusted sociopaths and no amount of treatment would prevent what they did.

I totally agree that the cutting in funding to mental health services is a disgrace but that's because it leaves people vulnerable and unable to lead independent lives not because it churns out n'er do wells like Mair.

I'm not claiming these killers are the victims, but plainly they have a screw lose and that can only be exacerbated by the deeply unprofessional and immoral twats in the media and the amoral, similarly sociopathic deviants in government. Build the conditions of a lunatic asylum and you will encourage lunatics. Fracture society, drive wedges, isolate people, place them under constant pressure and fear, drip endless propaganda into their brains. Remove all support structures. How hard should we cry when what is sown is then reaped? Certainly there's no justification for murder, ever, under any circumstances. Which is why I hate politicians. But if you treat people like animals then they'll behave like animals. Keep poking a dog, 24/7/365. Most dogs will whimper and tolerate it, others will eventually bite your face off. When it bites you, sure, the dog is guilty of biting you. No argument there. But I'm going to vomit in my mouth if the victim tries to gain the moral high ground.

[Niall_Quinn]

My point is more, the media shouldn't report anything he says, in fact it would be better in events like this that the whole court proceedings are treated as off limits

Mair killed Cox to give himself a platform, if he's granted one.....than we are rewarding him for brutality not punishing him.

It's the same as when the American media indulged Ted Bundy with his self-serving homily about how the distribution of violent pornography was responsible for his crimes, and that potentially any young man could have made the choices he did.

Truth is, the media should report a lot more. Their fault lies in trivialising the matter and trying to score cheap points for their petty agendas. A real journalist, somewhere out there, should take this story and run with it to wherever it leads. And it will lead to a dark and dingy place, that's for sure. Either this guy is a complete nutter who should have been under care for his own protection and the protection of everyone else, or some train of events and circumstances led him to murder. Examining those events and the role of everyone who played a significant part would be a real act of journalism. And part of that would be listening to what the guy has to say, because on the back of real reporting it could be placed in a realistic context. But you are right. As things stand and as journalists continue to choose to forego professionalism then it's better if they report nothing at all. That decision is being taken for them as their relevance plummets and the trust placed in them evaporates. So we won't have to worry about this much longer.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I'm not claiming these killers are the victims, but plainly they have a screw lose and that can only be exacerbated by the deeply unprofessional and immoral twats in the media and the amoral, similarly sociopathic deviants in government. Build the conditions of a lunatic asylum and you will encourage lunatics. Fracture society, drive wedges, isolate people, place them under constant pressure and fear, drip endless propaganda into their brains. Remove all support structures. How hard should we cry when what is sown is then reaped? Certainly there's no justification for murder, ever, under any circumstances. Which is why I hate politicians. But if you treat people like animals then they'll behave like animals. Keep poking a dog, 24/7/365. Most dogs will whimper and tolerate it, others will eventually bite your face off. When it bites you, sure, the dog is guilty of biting you. No argument there. But I'm going to vomit in my mouth if the victim tries to gain the moral high ground.

Again i state that stating that these "guys" have a screw loose mitigates for their actions when none exist.

I accept that you believe that the state is either directly or indirectly responsible for all of this (I don't), and I reject any suggestion that these individuals are products of their environment and would be redeemable in some other society you deem more befitting of human existence.

[Power n Glory]

It's exactly the same. by giving them any public airing it's a form of legitimising their actions. If you want your opinions heard controversial or not, you should not expect that committing brutal violence should be a viable tool to allow this.

As said, going back to the original point, The Daily Mail seem to be handling this case in a different way compared to how they usually deal with things.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Truth is, the media should report a lot more. Their fault lies in trivialising the matter and trying to score cheap points for their petty agendas. A real journalist, somewhere out there, should take this story and run with it to wherever it leads. And it will lead to a dark and dingy place, that's for sure. Either this guy is a complete nutter who should have been under care for his own protection and the protection of everyone else, or some train of events and circumstances led him to murder. Examining those events and the role of everyone who played a significant part would be a real act of journalism. And part of that would be listening to what the guy has to say, because on the back of real reporting it could be placed in a realistic context. But you are right. As things stand and as journalists continue to choose to forego professionalism then it's better if they report nothing at all. That decision is being taken for them as their relevance plummets and the trust placed in them evaporates. So we won't have to worry about this much longer.

Again you seem content to offer mitigation where i don't.

No this guy didn't have diminished capacity, no he wasn't any more of a victim than the millions of people in this country who don't go out and kill other people.

He is simply a bad person, some human beings are bad people. I feel this has to be accepted even if you believe government is at the root of all evil, because government after all is a purely human construct.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

As said, going back to the original point, The Daily Mail seem to be handling this case in a different way compared to how they usually deal with things.

But who cares?.....the Daily Mail has a rather unpleasant political agenda. Since when was that news.

The assumption that the Daily Mail won't call this out as a terrorist act (which it isn't) when it did with Lee Rigby, and it's attempt to pin it on immigrants (Mair feared losing his council house to migrant family apparently). This is all predicated on the assumption that anyone should take their cues from the Daily Mail.

[Power n Glory]

But who cares?.....the Daily Mail has a rather unpleasant political agenda. Since when was that news.

The assumption that the Daily Mail won't call this out as a terrorist act (which it isn't) when it did with Lee Rigby, and it's attempt to pin it on immigrants (Mair feared losing his council house to migrant family apparently). This is all predicated on the assumption that anyone should take their cues from the Daily Mail.

I think you've run off on a tangent. It's how this whole conversation started and why I posted the piece from The Guardian in the first place.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I think you've run off on a tangent. It's how this whole conversation started and why I posted the piece from The Guardian in the first place.

I'm well aware how the conversation started. My point from the beginning is that that particular argument was irrelevant in my opinion

Additionally the left in many respects are just as bad using that line of argument, and are afraid to point out that whilst acts of islamic terrorism aren't representative of all muslims to try and suggest as they do that it has no direct connection with Islam is untrue.

When people seek to justify their violent tendencies, it's helpful that a nihilistic religion exists in order for them to do so. Islam unlike Christianity hasn't gone through the same pacification process to the point where most Christians are dilettantes and pick and choose which biblical passages should be considered true, and which should conveniently should be treated as metaphor.

[Power n Glory]

I'm well aware how the conversation started. My point from the beginning is that that particular argument was irrelevant in my opinion

Additionally the left in many respects are just as bad using that line of argument, and are afraid to point out that whilst acts of islamic terrorism aren't representative of all muslims to try and suggest as they do that it has no direct connection with Islam is untrue.

When people seek to justify their violent tendencies, it's helpful that a nihilistic religion exists in order for them to do so. Islam unlike Christianity hasn't gone through the same pacification process to the point where most Christians are dilettantes and pick and choose which biblical passages should be considered true, and which should conveniently should be treated as metaphor.

Your point from the beginning was kind of irrelevant to what was originally posted if we're looking at it that way. :lol:



Quote Originally Posted by Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie View Post
I didnt regard the killing of Lee Rigby or Jo Cox as acts of terrorism, I consider them both acts of senseless murder perpetrated by brain dead atavistic losers who above all sought notoriety, and the so called "political motivation" might have governed who they killed but largely was a justification for a need to act violently.

Of course you can make that argument about all terrorist acts, but ultimately I think what's important is to deny these individuals credence to be regarded as political martyrs. They are maladjusted sociopaths who deserve punishment for their brutality and should not be seen as worthy of any great analysis.

I'm talking more of a double standard with reporting, especially the Daily Mail, but I hear your point.

You've kind of runaway with your own thoughts on this one but it's cool.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Your point from the beginning was kind of irrelevant to what was originally posted if we're looking at it that way. :lol:

If you like, as a point of reference I read that very Guardian article yesterday and yesterday like today I didn't find it having anything worthwhile to say.

It makes the point that there is more focus on acts of terror committed in the name of Islam than for far right purposes

End of the day why wouldn't the Daily Mail do that?.......demographically the vast majority of it's readers are going to be white, whether you encourage it or not they are going to be more threatened by violence committed by people that don't look like them, don't sound like them etc.

[Niall_Quinn]

Again i state that stating that these "guys" have a screw loose mitigates for their actions when none exist.

I accept that you believe that the state is either directly or indirectly responsible for all of this (I don't), and I reject any suggestion that these individuals are products of their environment and would be redeemable in some other society you deem more befitting of human existence.

Are you making a religious argument here?

[Power n Glory]

If you like, as a point of reference I read that very Guardian article yesterday and yesterday like today I didn't find it having anything worthwhile to say.

It makes the point that there is more focus on acts of terror committed in the name of Islam than for far right purposes

End of the day why wouldn't the Daily Mail do that?.......demographically the vast majority of it's readers are going to be white, whether you encourage it or not they are going to be more threatened by violence committed by people that don't look like them, don't sound like them etc.

But the piece sort of covered that with the below in the closing paragraph.


So it is even more important that the media, which prides itself on real, not fake news, does not hide the true story – however unpleasant or contrary to their own worldview it might be.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

But the piece sort of covered that with the below in the closing paragraph.

But i don't agree with that closing point in the sense that any of the media have shown any capability of expressing the true story, the point is both the Mail and The Guardian are equally guilty of running a narrative, totally separate narratives.

The article immediately dismisses the credibility of the source that Mair had any concern over losing his council home to migrants because it wanted to pursue the white supremacist angle. And the Mail wanted to push the multiculturalism is pushing people to breaking point angle but it didn't have the courage of it's convictions to do so on it's front page.

My point is the simple true story when we divest it of supposition, is that a man killed a woman and he's going to prison for it. I personally believe that no other context needs to be explored and that has been my point from the outset.

[Kano]

But i don't agree with that closing point in the sense that any of the media have shown any capability of expressing the true story, the point is both the Mail and The Guardian are equally guilty of running a narrative, totally separate narratives.

The article immediately dismisses the credibility of the source that Mair had any concern over losing his council home to migrants because it wanted to pursue the white supremacist angle. And the Mail wanted to push the multiculturalism is pushing people to breaking point angle but it didn't have the courage of it's convictions to do so on it's front page.

My point is the simple true story when we divest it of supposition, is that a man killed a woman and he's going to prison for it. I personally believe that no other context needs to be explored and that has been my point from the outset.
There's always context. And it's always important. It doesn't always have to be attached to a belief or cause. Reason is just as valid. Otherwise all of our actions would be singular and without meaning. But that isn't the problem here. The issue, as always, is how this is reported, the wider bullshit framework either side of the MSM are pinning this to and the narrative people continue to allow themselves to be tricked into.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

There's always context. And it's always important. It doesn't always have to be attached to a belief or cause. Reason is just as valid. Otherwise all of our actions would be singular and without meaning. But that isn't the problem here. The issue, as always, is how this is reported, the wider bullshit framework either side of the MSM are pinning this to and the narrative people continue to allow themselves to be tricked into.

The context is clearly that this man killed someone to get attention. That's why he refused to enter a plea at his court hearing. In that sense any other analysis of what motivated this man is a capitulation to him.

All I see is attributing his actions to a political ideology or any other reasons reduces his agency, he wasn't compelled to kill he chose to kill.

The only real punishment befitting of a man like that is for him to be ignored. Locking him away is for our own protection.

[Niall_Quinn]

The context is clearly that this man killed someone to get attention. That's why he refused to enter a plea at his court hearing. In that sense any other analysis of what motivated this man is a capitulation to him.

The only real punishment befitting of a man like that is for him to be ignored. Locking him away is for our own protection.

I would think the reason why a person would do this and the context in which his actions are framed are of eminent importance. This is entirely separate to the issue of the media and their shallow agendas. But the media is prepared to speak, and speak loudly. So if everyone else simply washes their hands then the media will set the stage and play on it without challenge. In this society we're always tackling symptoms, we hardly ever consider causes. This is deliberate I suppose.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I would think the reason why a person would do this and the context in which his actions are framed are of eminent importance. This is entirely separate to the issue of the media and their shallow agendas. But the media is prepared to speak, and speak loudly. So if everyone else simply washes their hands then the media will set the stage and play on it without challenge. In this society we're always tackling symptoms, we hardly ever consider causes. This is deliberate I suppose.

I'm not convinced it is important, like I say it all leads to one thing somehow diminishing the responsibility this man had for his crime.

Now the media will always allow this to happen to push an agenda, I mentioned Ted Bundy earlier and how a Christian conservative interviewed Bundy where Bundy blamed violent pornography that dehumanises women on what he did. This was beneficial to the Christian conservative because he could peddle something that confirmed his own bias and it benefited Bundy because like any other sociopath it gave him an avenue to direct the responsibility of his actions onto others.

Mair killed someone, now he could have stood up in court and delivered a speech about how Jo Cox represented the liberal traitors selling out his country to globalisation and to multiculturalism and his actions were a message that it would not be tolerated anymore.

Is that case closed because it comes from the Horses mouth?. Or is that just another person trying to negate his own responsibility by telling us he had no choice.

Ultimately people love true crime stories, they love to hear the myriad background factors going through people's minds that cause them to do things they themselves would never contemplate.

I think it sufficient to know that Mair is a killer and his freedom is not conducive to public safety

[Power n Glory]

HCZ - it sounds dangerously close to a media blackout for certain events and incidents? Isn't that just perpetuating the problem? We have a problem with the way news stories are spun or ignored already.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

HCZ - it sounds dangerously close to a media blackout for certain events and incidents? Isn't that just perpetuating the problem? We have a problem with the way news stories are spun or ignored already.

No i don't think it perpetuates the problem, i think the 24 hour news cycle that creams it's pants over murders, mass shootings etc exacerbates the problem. I'm not saying the crimes should not be reported on at all, but far less attention should be paid to the suspect.

Ultimately in so many of these cases the perpetrator craves notoriety and we are obliging them.

If Mair met the definition of someone who suffered from psychiatric illness than it would be different, because ultimately the context would be that the system had failed both him and by extension Jo Cox, but that simply is not the case.

[Power n Glory]

No i don't think it perpetuates the problem, i think the 24 hour news cycle that creams it's pants over murders, mass shootings etc exacerbates the problem. I'm not saying the crimes should not be reported on at all, but far less attention should be paid to the suspect.

Ultimately in so many of these cases the perpetrator craves notoriety and we are obliging them.


If Mair met the definition of someone who suffered from psychiatric illness than it would be different, because ultimately the context would be that the system had failed both him and by extension Jo Cox, but that simply is not the case.

Isn't that the same as taking responsibility away from the individual and blaming the media?

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Isn't that the same as taking responsibility away from the individual and blaming the media?

Ultimately you could argue that if the media don't turn the defendant into some quasi celebrity and people know that the rationale for their crimes are going to be ignored than there is less incentive for them to commit such a crime.

Whilst i don't think hyperbole and media sensation is helpful, yes I do believe ultimately people are responsible for their own actions until they are not (diminished capacity).

Blaming the media by making a crime appealing, would be the same as the victim of Murder in furtherance of theft being responsible for what happened to him by being rich and flaunting it.

If you flash a gold watch in public you run the risk of being robbed and it's probably irresponsible, but ultimately the person at fault is the person who took it upon himself to assault you and steal the watch.

[Power n Glory]

Ultimately you could argue that if the media don't turn the defendant into some quasi celebrity and people know that the rationale for their crimes are going to be ignored than there is less incentive for them to commit such a crime.

Whilst i don't think hyperbole and media sensation is helpful, yes I do believe ultimately people are responsible for their own actions until they are not (diminished capacity).

Blaming the media by making a crime appealing, would be the same as the victim of Murder in furtherance of theft being responsible for what happened to him by being rich and flaunting it.

If you flash a gold watch in public you run the risk of being robbed and it's probably irresponsible, but ultimately the person at fault is the person who took it upon himself to assault you and steal the watch.

I wouldn't argue that. Plenty of attention seekers out in the world and you can become a celebrity for a lot less. I seriously doubt it's an incentive. If one murder isn't enough to catch headlines, a sick mind will only up the stakes to commit something that's hard to ignore.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I wouldn't argue that. Plenty of attention seekers out in the world and you can become a celebrity for a lot less. I seriously doubt it's an incentive. If one murder isn't enough to catch headlines, a sick mind will only up the stakes to commit something that's hard to ignore.

And how often are mass murders or high profile murders ignored?

Adam Lanza, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Seung Hui Cho even in death they have all gained a kind of immortality through infammy

No not all attention seekers are going to kill people, most of them will try to go on apalling reality shows.

But individuals like those above are given added incentive to carry out their violent desires when they believe there is some kind of twisted reward for it.

Would they do it anyway? probably but either way you are giving them both agency and incentive

[Power n Glory]

And how often are mass murders or high profile murders ignored?

Adam Lanza, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Seung Hui Cho even in death they have all gained a kind of immortality through infammy

No not all attention seekers are going to kill people, most of them will try to go on apalling reality shows.

But individuals like those above are given added incentive to carry out their violent desires when they believe there is some kind of twisted reward for it.

Would they do it anyway? probably but either way you are giving them both agency and incentive

Sounds like a contradiction to me.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Sounds like a contradiction to me.

Not really, it would be a contradiction if i said the media were both responsible and not responsible for these killers do

What I'm saying is they may well do it anyway but why encourage them.

[Power n Glory]

Not really, it would be a contradiction if i said the media were both responsible and not responsible for these killers do

What I'm saying is they may well do it anyway but why encourage them.

To say it's an incentive or encourages....it shifts the responsibility. It's close to what you were arguing against with NQ. The Ted Bundy example comes to mind. It's not a million miles away from what was said about the influence of porn.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

To say it's an incentive or encourages....it shifts the responsibility. It's close to what you were arguing against with NQ. The Ted Bundy example comes to mind. It's not a million miles away from what was said about the influence of porn.

It would be if I said these people are victims of a culture that sensationalises violence....I didn't

And it would be if I said these people wouldn't have killed but for the media misery porn, again I didn't

The point is more that when as I say people like Muir commit acts for notoriety, the media are rewarding them.

Would he have found another outlet for his violent tendencies? Yes more than likely.

Would he have still killed Jo Cox if the media didn't go out of its way to sate people's morbid curiousity....again quite possibly because many people like attention, only certain people kill for attention and they want to kill anyway.

But let's be fair if this wasn't a murderer we were talking about no one would be discussing what Nazi books he had in his bookshelf at home, nor would anyone care what his far right beliefs were.

So no the Media is not responsible for the behaviour of the atavist, but it's rewarding him/her for that behaviour

[Power n Glory]

It would be if I said these people are victims of a culture that sensationalises violence....I didn't

And it would be if I said these people wouldn't have killed but for the media misery porn, again I didn't

The point is more that when as I say people like Muir commit acts for notoriety, the media are rewarding them.

Would he have found another outlet for his violent tendencies? Yes more than likely.

Would he have still killed Jo Cox if the media didn't go out of its way to sate people's morbid curiousity....again quite possibly because many people like attention, only certain people kill for attention and they want to kill anyway.

But let's be fair if this wasn't a murderer we were talking about no one would be discussing what Nazi books he had in his bookshelf at home, nor would anyone care what his far right beliefs were.

So no the Media is not responsible for the behaviour of the atavist, but it's rewarding him/her for that behaviour

I didn't say you made all the above arguments, you're just skating pretty close to the argument of censorship and media influence.


Now the media will always allow this to happen to push an agenda, I mentioned Ted Bundy earlier and how a Christian conservative interviewed Bundy where Bundy blamed violent pornography that dehumanises women on what he did. This was beneficial to the Christian conservative because he could peddle something that confirmed his own bias and it benefited Bundy because like any other sociopath it gave him an avenue to direct the responsibility of his actions onto others.

The above is what I mean and where I see a slight contradiction.

[Letters]

Fidel Castro :rose:

I'm sure this is how he'd want to be remembered


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq6s8G5hwzE

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Fidel Castro :rose:

I'm sure this is how he'd want to be remembered


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq6s8G5hwzE


I'm not quite sure why there is this fawning reverence for this guy. Don't get me wrong I think it was amusing for the Americans to have their nose rubbed in shit by having a communist state thirty miles or so off their own coastline, especially as he overthrew the US endorsed military dictator in Fulgencio Batista.

But ask any of the Cuban exiles what it was like living under Castro and it won't be the same romantic picture, these aren't all hard right individuals and I genuinely believe that the Obama administrations bizarre decision to normalise relations with Havanna led to many Cuban Americans deciding to vote for Trump in Florida.

Fuck him basically for all the people his regime killed, tortured or simply imprisoned without trial.

[Letters]

Is there a fawning reverence for him?

[Niall_Quinn]

Is there a fawning reverence for him?

Castro is a trigger. If you don't come out 100% against him, if you say anything at all that doesn't condemn him outright and in the harshest terms, then you support him. Americans are as paranoid about Castro as they are about off-white teeth or abridged editions of Catcher in the Rye.

[Power n Glory]

Imprisoned without trial. :lol: Sort of ironic that the Land of the Free cut Cuba off but still have a certain base open over there.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Is there a fawning reverence for him?

Clearly there is, all you need to do is look at even obituaries from the Guardian and Independent almost in admiration for the "revolutionary leader"

[Letters]

Castro is a trigger. If you don't come out 100% against him, if you say anything at all that doesn't condemn him outright and in the harshest terms, then you support him. Americans are as paranoid about Castro as they are about off-white teeth or abridged editions of Catcher in the Rye.

Bit like Wenger on here then?


:coffee:

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Castro is a trigger. If you don't come out 100% against him, if you say anything at all that doesn't condemn him outright and in the harshest terms, then you support him. Americans are as paranoid about Castro as they are about off-white teeth or abridged editions of Catcher in the Rye.

People can think what they like of Castro and judging by social media they do, even the media in this country has a grudging admiration for him.

The Americans are clearly hypocrites of course, they didn't like him not because he was a brutal dictator but because he was a communist, running a communist state in their own backyard.

I have come to my own conclusion why the guy is a cunt.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Imprisoned without trial. :lol: Sort of ironic that the Land of the Free cut Cuba off but still have a certain base open over there.

The Americans cut off Cuba because it's an embarassment to them, of course the detention of "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo is an affront to decency of course. I don't think taking away Habeas Corpas is right no matter who is doing it.

And America is rightly condemned for it, so should Cuba in turn be condemned for its routine human rights abuses under Fidel Castro.

[Kano]

Clearly there is, all you need to do is look at even obituaries from the Guardian and Independent almost in admiration for the "revolutionary leader"

Nah, that's just hipsters. Hence the t-shirt brigade who like his beard and the word revolution.

[Niall_Quinn]

Bit like Wenger on here then?


:coffee:

There you go supporting Wenger again. Commie bastard.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Nah, that's just hipsters. Hence the t-shirt brigade who like his beard and the word revolution.

Why is it you have to ask yourself that it's acceptable to have t shirts with Che Guevara, Castro or Mao on and yet if a printed tshirt with Mussolini, Hitler or Pinochet people would be up in arms.

I do think there is some kind of sense that left wing dictators and thugs are somehow more acceptable than the right wing equivalent. It's not a view I hold to, I think they are equally disgusting.

[Niall_Quinn]

People can think what they like of Castro and judging by social media they do, even the media in this country has a grudging admiration for him.

The Americans are clearly hypocrites of course, they didn't like him not because he was a brutal dictator but because he was a communist, running a communist state in their own backyard.

I have come to my own conclusion why the guy is a cunt.

I think their hatred was a bit more practical and worldly than that. My own litmus test never fails. Doesn't matter what nation, what period in history.

Q: Does it claim authority over everyone else and hire thugs and shakedown artists to fund and sustain itself?
A: And now here's Jane with the weather.

[Kano]

Why is it you have to ask yourself that it's acceptable to have t shirts with Che Guevara, Castro or Mao on and yet if a printed tshirt with Mussolini, Hitler or Pinochet people would be up in arms.

I do think there is some kind of sense that left wing dictators and thugs are somehow more acceptable than the right wing equivalent. It's not a view I hold to, I think they are equally disgusting.

As long as they are Russian or Chinese I have no problem with them. Fuck everyone else.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I think their hatred was a bit more practical and worldly than that. My own litmus test never fails me in asserting my own unrelenting world view, Doesn't matter what nation, what period in history.

Q: Does it claim authority over everyone else and hire thugs and shakedown artists to fund and sustain itself?
A: And now here's Jane with the weather.

Just slightly amended that for you

[Niall_Quinn]

Why is it you have to ask yourself that it's acceptable to have t shirts with Che Guevara, Castro or Mao on and yet if a printed tshirt with Mussolini, Hitler or Pinochet people would be up in arms.

I do think there is some kind of sense that left wing dictators and thugs are somehow more acceptable than the right wing equivalent. It's not a view I hold to, I think they are equally disgusting.

Students mainly. Anyone against "the man" gets a T-Shirt. "The man" gets none. Pinocet doesn't really fit that list, but he did get a line in Maggie nightdresses.

[Niall_Quinn]

Just slightly amended that for you

Prove me wrong in any instance ever. You have the history of humankind to choose from.

[Niall_Quinn]

Is the Guardian the most aptly named organisation in the world? And the Independent the least? It looks that way.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Prove me wrong in any instance ever. You have the history of humankind to choose from.

That would be pointless because using your rationale any kind of military or law enforcement comes under the bracket of thugs and shakedown artists.

And this is fundamentally where the unbridgeable gap there in lies between us, because I don't believe there is quantative and qualitative parity in terms of freedom (or lack thereof) between living in the UK, US, Canada or any country in Western Europe or living in Castros Cuba or the Al Saud mobster racket in Saudi Arabia.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Students mainly. Anyone against "the man" gets a T-Shirt. "The man" gets none. Pinocet doesn't really fit that list, but he did get a line in Maggie nightdresses.

The point is the students seem to think there is any difference between the left and the right, and to an extent I think this is almost encouraged.

[Kano]

The point is the students seem to think there is any difference between the left and the right, and to an extent I think this is almost encouraged.

All you have to do is put on a different colour tie and people will believe anything.

[Niall_Quinn]

That would be pointless because using your rationale any kind of military or law enforcement comes under the bracket of thugs and shakedown artists.

And this is fundamentally where the unbridgeable gap there in lies between us, because I don't believe there is quantative and qualitative parity in terms of freedom (or lack thereof) between living in the UK, US, Canada or any country in Western Europe or living in Castros Cuba or the Al Saud mobster racket in Saudi Arabia.

Let's test this to see if there is any compatibility between freedom (better termed liberty) and government.

To avoid red herrings such as your house having the benefit of being protected by the fire service by default, or your person being protected by the police by default, we go and live with a friend in a detached home on private land without a neighbour within a mile, and we resolve to have no contact with police, ambulance or any other state service regardless of what befalls us. We have no children so we don't require indoctrination services, we have no car, we literally live in a shack at the end of a neighbour's garden.

We have jobs. We rent a private, non-UK based satellite Internet service. We purchase fuel to run our own generator so we are off the grid. We collect rainwater in a barrel. We only conduct business with non-UK companies. Our payment is delivered in cash by a courier each month and we don't use banking services.

What happens if:

1. We refuse to register on the electoral roll?
2. We withhold payment of tax?

Explain how liberty works under these circumstances and what the outcome of our claim on liberty will be if we exercise that condition and refuse to comply with the state in all cases.

Next, tell me what happens if we exercise our right to self defence under these conditions?

As you can see, there is no fundamental difference between the state in the UK and the state in Castro's Cuba, other than the probability it would be harder for the state to find you in Cuba.

The state is most certainly an authoritarian entity that hires thugs to commit violence against all those who refuse to collaborate with it. How can you argue otherwise given the self evident facts?

I think your only argument can be that sovereignty reside with the monarch and we are therefore automatically subject to the authority of the monarch. Unfortunately that authority allegedly is granted directly by God - yes really, I'm not making that up. It's God that directly intervenes and raises the monarch above all others and grants him/ her the additional rights to command and govern.

But what happens if you don't believe in God?

The state is the biggest myth and the biggest scam ever perpetrated. And its main concern is in the execution of the second biggest scam ever perpetrated, the money fraud. Under these conditions it is impossible for liberty to exist.

[Goonermerree]

The Americans cut off Cuba because it's an embarassment to them, of course the detention of "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo is an affront to decency of course. I don't think taking away Habeas Corpas is right no matter who is doing it.

And America is rightly condemned for it, so should Cuba in turn be condemned for its routine human rights abuses under Fidel Castro.

Agree. Just because one lot is as bad as the other lot doesn't mean neither should be condemned for what they have done.

[Goonermerree]

Why is it you have to ask yourself that it's acceptable to have t shirts with Che Guevara, Castro or Mao on and yet if a printed tshirt with Mussolini, Hitler or Pinochet people would be up in arms.

I do think there is some kind of sense that left wing dictators and thugs are somehow more acceptable than the right wing equivalent. It's not a view I hold to, I think they are equally disgusting.

Agree with that too!

[Niall_Quinn]

The point is the students seem to think there is any difference between the left and the right, and to an extent I think this is almost encouraged.

Well there is a difference between the left and right in terms of philosophy and ideology. The modern confusion arises due to extremist left wing "centrist" organisations hijacking these philosophies and ideologies as marketing material to distinguish their indistinguishable collectivist and authoritarian agendas. The right is always a tentative thing and can only exist for limited periods, the left is what replaces it as society degrades into stability, corruption and inevitable collapse. Jesus was a right wing activist. The church his unintended left wing bastard. The "right wing fascist" Nazis were left wing socialists. The extremist British establishment ran its entire empire racket from the centre, as most racketeering empires have done. The model just keeps repeating, over and over again and to such a degree that familiarity has crushed all concept of alternatives.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Let's test this to see if there is any compatibility between freedom (better termed liberty) and government.

To avoid red herrings such as your house having the benefit of being protected by the fire service by default, or your person being protected by the police by default, we go and live with a friend in a detached home on private land without a neighbour within a mile, and we resolve to have no contact with police, ambulance or any other state service regardless of what befalls us. We have no children so we don't require indoctrination services, we have no car, we literally live in a shack at the end of a neighbour's garden.

We have jobs. We rent a private, non-UK based satellite Internet service. We purchase fuel to run our own generator so we are off the grid. We collect rainwater in a barrel. We only conduct business with non-UK companies. Our payment is delivered in cash by a courier each month and we don't use banking services.

What happens if:

1. We refuse to register on the electoral roll?
2. We withhold payment of tax?

Explain how liberty works under these circumstances and what the outcome of our claim on liberty will be if we exercise that condition and refuse to comply with the state in all cases.

Next, tell me what happens if we exercise our right to self defence under these conditions?

As you can see, there is no fundamental difference between the state in the UK and the state in Castro's Cuba, other than the probability it would be harder for the state to find you in Cuba.

The state is most certainly an authoritarian entity that hires thugs to commit violence against all those who refuse to collaborate with it. How can you argue otherwise given the self evident facts?

I think your only argument can be that sovereignty reside with the monarch and we are therefore automatically subject to the authority of the monarch. Unfortunately that authority allegedly is granted directly by God - yes really, I'm not making that up. It's God that directly intervenes and raises the monarch above all others and grants him/ her the additional rights to command and govern.

But what happens if you don't believe in God?

The state is the biggest myth and the biggest scam ever perpetrated. And its main concern is in the execution of the second biggest scam ever perpetrated, the money fraud. Under these conditions it is impossible for liberty to exist.

The point is it's all relative, you may think having to pay tax on your income or having to register on the electoral roll is the same as for instance being a hairdresser in Saddams Iraq where the Ba'ath party would expect you to inform them of the conversations your customers are having when you are cutting their hair, and suspicion will fall on you if you don't at least report some of those customers for having made a subversive remark (regardless of whether they did or didn't).
Knowing that in that respect you face the choice of torture/imprisonment or worse or inflicting it indirectly on other people so as to shield yourself from that fate.
You can tell yourself you are living in a state of constant invigilitation and terror because you will be fined for not registering on the electoral roll, or be punished for refusing to pay tax on services whether you use them or not. You make think that's comparable to a totalitarian existence, you may think the methodology is different but the outcome is the same but I don't and I don't think the people who escaped such states to live in western democracies would agree with you either.
This is the unbridgeable gap, I take no issue with libertarianism in itself even if I don't believe it to be practical (and certainly not currently) but I'm not in fear of summary execution or torture, I can say what I like (even with the liberal political correctness agenda that's gone too far I'm only in fear of being slightly ostracised) and in return I have to make a contribution to the society in which I lived monetarily......that's how it is, if you want to see me as a slave who is glad of his chains than I doubt anything I've said will convince you otherwise.
I would only suggest that futility works both ways.

[GP]

https://i.imgur.com/9uSAHDR.jpg

President elect, folks.

[Niall_Quinn]

The point is it's all relative, you may think having to pay tax on your income or having to register on the electoral roll is the same as for instance being a hairdresser in Saddams Iraq where the Ba'ath party would expect you to inform them of the conversations your customers are having when you are cutting their hair, and suspicion will fall on you if you don't at least report some of those customers for having made a subversive remark (regardless of whether they did or didn't).
Knowing that in that respect you face the choice of torture/imprisonment or worse or inflicting it indirectly on other people so as to shield yourself from that fate.
You can tell yourself you are living in a state of constant invigilitation and terror because you will be fined for not registering on the electoral roll, or be punished for refusing to pay tax on services whether you use them or not. You make think that's comparable to a totalitarian existence, you may think the methodology is different but the outcome is the same but I don't and I don't think the people who escaped such states to live in western democracies would agree with you either.
This is the unbridgeable gap, I take no issue with libertarianism in itself even if I don't believe it to be practical (and certainly not currently) but I'm not in fear of summary execution or torture, I can say what I like (even with the liberal political correctness agenda that's gone too far I'm only in fear of being slightly ostracised) and in return I have to make a contribution to the society in which I lived monetarily......that's how it is, if you want to see me as a slave who is glad of his chains than I doubt anything I've said will convince you otherwise.
I would only suggest that futility works both ways.

You are confusing principle with practicality.

When you do that it becomes practically expedient to commit all manner of atrocities. And this state in which we live routinely does just that. Our authoritarians have figured out that ultimate control is best enforced with fewer fences. It's just a difference in style, not principle. But that doesn't stop them doing all the things you are grateful they don't do to you to other people, removed, out of sight out of mind.

In effect you are grateful that another individual grants you rights. I find such acceptance of fundamental inequality difficult to understand, especially when we spend our whoe time campaigning for equality for minorities. What about equality for the majority?

[Niall_Quinn]

https://i.imgur.com/9uSAHDR.jpg

President elect, folks.

His Hillary moment.

[Goonermerree]

Let's test this to see if there is any compatibility between freedom (better termed liberty) and government.

To avoid red herrings such as your house having the benefit of being protected by the fire service by default, or your person being protected by the police by default, we go and live with a friend in a detached home on private land without a neighbour within a mile, and we resolve to have no contact with police, ambulance or any other state service regardless of what befalls us. We have no children so we don't require indoctrination services, we have no car, we literally live in a shack at the end of a neighbour's garden.

We have jobs. We rent a private, non-UK based satellite Internet service. We purchase fuel to run our own generator so we are off the grid. We collect rainwater in a barrel. We only conduct business with non-UK companies. Our payment is delivered in cash by a courier each month and we don't use banking services.

What happens if:

1. We refuse to register on the electoral roll?
2. We withhold payment of tax?

Explain how liberty works under these circumstances and what the outcome of our claim on liberty will be if we exercise that condition and refuse to comply with the state in all cases.

Next, tell me what happens if we exercise our right to self defence under these conditions?

As you can see, there is no fundamental difference between the state in the UK and the state in Castro's Cuba, other than the probability it would be harder for the state to find you in Cuba.

The state is most certainly an authoritarian entity that hires thugs to commit violence against all those who refuse to collaborate with it. How can you argue otherwise given the self evident facts?

I think your only argument can be that sovereignty reside with the monarch and we are therefore automatically subject to the authority of the monarch. Unfortunately that authority allegedly is granted directly by God - yes really, I'm not making that up. It's God that directly intervenes and raises the monarch above all others and grants him/ her the additional rights to command and govern.

But what happens if you don't believe in God?

The state is the biggest myth and the biggest scam ever perpetrated. And its main concern is in the execution of the second biggest scam ever perpetrated, the money fraud. Under these conditions it is impossible for liberty to exist.

You'd be put in prison or shot for typing that in Cuba.

[Niall_Quinn]

The point is it's all relative, you may think having to pay tax on your income or having to register on the electoral roll is the same as for instance being a hairdresser in Saddams Iraq where the Ba'ath party would expect you to inform them of the conversations your customers are having when you are cutting their hair, and suspicion will fall on you if you don't at least report some of those customers for having made a subversive remark (regardless of whether they did or didn't).
Knowing that in that respect you face the choice of torture/imprisonment or worse or inflicting it indirectly on other people so as to shield yourself from that fate.
You can tell yourself you are living in a state of constant invigilitation and terror because you will be fined for not registering on the electoral roll, or be punished for refusing to pay tax on services whether you use them or not. You make think that's comparable to a totalitarian existence, you may think the methodology is different but the outcome is the same but I don't and I don't think the people who escaped such states to live in western democracies would agree with you either.
This is the unbridgeable gap, I take no issue with libertarianism in itself even if I don't believe it to be practical (and certainly not currently) but I'm not in fear of summary execution or torture, I can say what I like (even with the liberal political correctness agenda that's gone too far I'm only in fear of being slightly ostracised) and in return I have to make a contribution to the society in which I lived monetarily......that's how it is, if you want to see me as a slave who is glad of his chains than I doubt anything I've said will convince you otherwise.
I would only suggest that futility works both ways.

Under the conditions I detailed, pose a moral argument for taxation. And ensure it conforms with the law set down by the state. All law, there can be no diametric contradictions.

I'll save you the time. There is no conceivable moral justification and you know it. There is no law that can be argued in the context of the whole body of law and certainly none in the common law, indeed taxation is a very serious crime under the common law. Taxation is one of the ultimate contradictions and also one of the best indicators of the illegitimacy of the state and the goons that constitute the state.

[Niall_Quinn]

You'd be put in prison or shot for typing that in Cuba.

Again, confusion between principle and practise. All you are saying is that one thug is more energetic than another.

[Niall_Quinn]

Totalitarian: relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.

Is taxation totalitarian in nature? Most certainly. It is practised by the state, and only the state, it is dictated by the state and the thugs hired by state demand total compliance. Worse than the poor Iraqi hairdresser as in matters of taxation the state demands with menaces that you report yourself.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

You are confusing principle with practicality.

When you do that it becomes practically expedient to commit all manner of atrocities. And this state in which we live routinely does just that. Our authoritarians have figured out that ultimate control is best enforced with fewer fences. It's just a difference in style, not principle. But that doesn't stop them doing all the things you are grateful they don't do to you to other people, removed, out of sight out of mind.

In effect you are grateful that another individual grants you rights. I find such acceptance of fundamental inequality difficult to understand, especially when we spend our whoe time campaigning for equality for minorities. What about equality for the majority?

No what I'm telling you is I don't give a fuck about the principle in comparison to the practical, in any real sense it doesn't really matter to me how I came by these freedoms the fact is they are there. It's not a case of being eternally grateful, it's an acknowledgement that it could be a lot worse.
Nothing should ever be settled and everything should be a matter for debate, there are plenty of things countries I consider free societies do that fly in the face of that concept and it's not about excusing it but I won't ally myself with those who scream foul at the outrages commited by these societies and excuse far worse ones elsewhere (and I'm not accusing you of that, nor in fact have I claimed that to be the case).

[Goonermerree]

Let's test this to see if there is any compatibility between freedom (better termed liberty) and government.

To avoid red herrings such as your house having the benefit of being protected by the fire service by default, or your person being protected by the police by default, we go and live with a friend in a detached home on private land without a neighbour within a mile, and we resolve to have no contact with police, ambulance or any other state service regardless of what befalls us. We have no children so we don't require indoctrination services, we have no car, we literally live in a shack at the end of a neighbour's garden.

We have jobs. We rent a private, non-UK based satellite Internet service. We purchase fuel to run our own generator so we are off the grid. We collect rainwater in a barrel. We only conduct business with non-UK companies. Our payment is delivered in cash by a courier each month and we don't use banking services.

What happens if:

1. We refuse to register on the electoral roll?
2. We withhold payment of tax?

Explain how liberty works under these circumstances and what the outcome of our claim on liberty will be if we exercise that condition and refuse to comply with the state in all cases.

Next, tell me what happens if we exercise our right to self defence under these conditions?

As you can see, there is no fundamental difference between the state in the UK and the state in Castro's Cuba, other than the probability it would be harder for the state to find you in Cuba.

The state is most certainly an authoritarian entity that hires thugs to commit violence against all those who refuse to collaborate with it. How can you argue otherwise given the self evident facts?

I think your only argument can be that sovereignty reside with the monarch and we are therefore automatically subject to the authority of the monarch. Unfortunately that authority allegedly is granted directly by God - yes really, I'm not making that up. It's God that directly intervenes and raises the monarch above all others and grants him/ her the additional rights to command and govern.

But what happens if you don't believe in God?

The state is the biggest myth and the biggest scam ever perpetrated. And its main concern is in the execution of the second biggest scam ever perpetrated, the money fraud. Under these conditions it is impossible for liberty to exist.

I hope you're not getting that sent on a lorry that used the road, or that the satellite dish didn't come in the same way. And you better not be using our telephone systems for your internet. I don't appreciate my taxes paying for you in that way.

[Niall_Quinn]

I hope you're not getting that sent on a lorry that used the road, or that the satellite dish didn't come in the same way. And you better not be using our telephone systems for your internet. I don't appreciate my taxes paying for you in that way.

The cost of the road transport is built into the private delivery charge levied by the courier firm that provides a service I can choose to consume or not consume. And regardless of what service I'm using for comms, if it is private then all taxes and other charges are taken into account by whoever pays for the service. You haven't paid a penny for me and under such conditions you never would. So do you now feel you can legitimately rob me?

I think some people have forgotten what private enterprise and choice actually is.

[Niall_Quinn]

No what I'm telling you is I don't give a fuck about the principle in comparison to the practical, in any real sense it doesn't really matter to me how I came by these freedoms the fact is they are there. It's not a case of being eternally grateful, it's an acknowledgement that it could be a lot worse.
Nothing should ever be settled and everything should be a matter for debate, there are plenty of things countries I consider free societies do that fly in the face of that concept and it's not about excusing it but I won't ally myself with those who scream foul at the outrages commited by these societies and excuse far worse ones elsewhere (and I'm not accusing you of that, nor in fact have I claimed that to be the case).

Well you are honest. Provided your concept of liberty is upheld it is acceptable to infringe mine. Even though I would choose to have no impact on you whatsoever, your system demands that I comply with it. I every way, that is totalitarianism. Your carrot is you won't kill or torture me. Instead you will rob me or cage me if I fail to comply. As I said, regardless of the support it enjoys, the state (not the nation) and government has zero legitimacy in any discussion concerning liberty.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Well you are honest. Provided your concept of liberty is upheld it is acceptable to infringe mine. Even though I would choose to have no impact on you whatsoever, your system demands that I comply with it. I every way, that is totalitarianism. Your carrot is you won't kill or torture me. Instead you will rob me or cage me if I fail to comply. As I said, regardless of the support it enjoys, the state (not the nation) and government has zero legitimacy in any discussion concerning liberty.


If it makes it easier for you to believe that I'm as much your jailer as the state is, you can believe what you like.

By that notion everyone who pays taxes, who does enrol on the electoral register and everyone who would rather live here than say China or a Gulf state country are equally complicit in your repression.

I would argue that by discussing it on here rather than doing everything in your power to try and make the Liberty you seek come to fruition, you are rather your own jailer.

[Niall_Quinn]

If it makes it easier for you to believe that I'm as much your jailer as the state is, you can believe what you like.

By that notion everyone who pays taxes, who does enrol on the electoral register and everyone who would rather live here than say China or a Gulf state country are equally complicit in your repression.

I would argue that by discussing it on here rather than doing everything in your power to try and make the Liberty you seek come to fruition, you are rather your own jailer.

That's true. I can believe what I like (if I can withstand state conditioning) and under this particular regime there are many instances where I can openly speak. But if I try to live by my beliefs then thugs will be sent to commit violence against me. That's just a fact is it not? So this authoritarian regime is in principle identical to every other authoritarian regime, only varying in the degree of violence used to prosecute its agendas. Our regime prefers to commit extreme acts of violence against foreigners rather than against its own captive constituency, but of course the threat of domestic violence is ever present should any citizen refuse to comply with state demands such as the tribute on labour that is mandatory. You seem to believe because these methods of authoritarianism are relatively benign, by comparison to say a worst case scenario such as North Korea, it becomes illegitimate or irrelevant to mention the illiberalism and violence that underpins the system. If I have misrepresented you then how so?

If a thug assaulted you and robbed you it would not be a good defence in court to suggest the victim made himself a victim by being alive. That wouldn't fly for a moment (unless it was government making the claim in which case it never reaches court). You surmise my discussion of the principles of liberty and my arguments that methodically highlight the incompatibility of the state with the concept of liberty are invalid absent a physical effort to overcome the criminality, in the face of overwhelming odds. You conclude my loss of liberty is my fault because of the failure to reclaim it from those who have removed it. You are accusing me of wilfully failing to be Gandhi? Is there no room at all for consideration of the thug and the robber who is, after all, the party removing liberties and enforcing removal through the use of violence? This is a bit too convenient, topsy-turvy. Besides, is the sword now mightier than the pen? If so, have you not seen a global change of opinion begin to sweep the west without any major recourse to violence? Small steps. Consistent adherence to the principles. In fact, fuck the practicalities I'm afraid, because that sort of short-term thinking is what always leads us to ruin. If we build on the most basic of principles that surely we all agree upon, thou shalt not,.. how can we end up with the state? That's like planning a wedding by murdering the bride. And so, downplaying or removing principle becomes essential as principle is the eternal enemy of the state and all forms of authoritarianism. Thus freed we are left with practicalities and expediency. No wonder we have such leaders.

I have to say, if you are content with the practicalities of state whilst content to disregard the principles and you claim legitimacy because those who recognise the state as illegitimate do not have the power to remove or avoid it, then in answer to your first point, yes, it does appear you are at one with the authoritarianism that infringes on the rights of others. Is it really unfair to say that considering you have said it yourself? Yet you deny it. And if you unreconcilable with principle and can therefore never agree with those who would try to convince you of a system based on principle, and if you are in the majority (which it appears you are for the time being), then what do you suggest I do to promote my views and cease "being [your own] jailer"? Find a method to be more violent than you?

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

You'll forgive me if I reply to this later, I had just about finished a response and my phone crashed.

[Niall_Quinn]

You'll forgive me if I reply to this later, I had just about finished a response and my phone crashed.

It's probably done with anyway. As you say, we won't agree.

Besides, a larger issue has arisen. Who the hell has the patience to use a forum on a mobile phone?

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

It's probably done with anyway. As you say, we won't agree.

Besides, a larger issue has arisen. Who the hell has the patience to use a forum on a mobile phone?

Ha, I was out in a pub waiting for a mate to arrive

[Letters]

GB swears by Tapatalk.

[LDG]

I use my phone as I don't have a combobulator. Except at work.

[Letters]

How do you combobulate at home then? :o

[LDG]

Smoke rings.

Actually, my laptop is fucked so saving for a mac.

[Niall_Quinn]

Smoke rings.

Actually, my laptop is fucked so saving for a mac.

Some good deals from Apple on 25 and 50 year repayment plans at the moment.

[LDG]

Some good deals from Apple on 25 and 50 year repayment plans at the moment.

:lol:

[GP]

Letters OUT!

I'll be forced to do some work at this rate.

[Letters]

:(. Jof needs a new hamster.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Some good deals from Apple on 25 and 50 year repayment plans at the moment.

Ah the indentured plan

I wonder if somewhere in the terms and conditions contains the small print "one day and this day may never come, we will ask you to do something for us"

[Power n Glory]

:(. Jof needs a new hamster.

GW is definitely on life support right now. :rose:

[Niall_Quinn]

Internet's biggest troll owns the Washington Post, hook, line and sinker. This is one of the funniest things I have seen so far. Politics is becoming highly entertaining, and not before time. I wonder how long it will take these "professional" idiots to twig?

http://www.propornot.com/p/home.html

:haha:

:popcorn:

[GP]

Eric Bristow :doh:

[Letters]

Had to look that up on Newsnow.
:doh: indeed.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Ha ha ha that made me laugh....I love his last tweet which says "sorry I meant paedos not poofs"

Now he will be made to attend some awareness workshop

Can't we just say "Ok Eric....no one gives a fuck what you have to say about this" and leave it at that, it's clearly a daft and ignorant thing to say but no instead he will be shamed and coerced into self improvement.

[Kano]

Paedo poof is the right terminology actually.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

The point is when social justice warriors try and shame people like Eric Bristow it doesn't make them any less ignorant, it makes them ignorant and resentful that their free speech is being repressed.

The thing is its daft to say "if he'd done it to me I'd have waited till I grew up and beat him up", the reality is he'd have no idea what he'd have done in the same circumstances.

Paedophile is obviously a relatively new term, and child abusers that abused young boys thirty-fourty years ago would have been called poofs, mainly because of information given out in the 1950s that equated homosexuality with child abuse. And that's where we get the Gay recruitment agenda nonsense from.

[Niall_Quinn]

Has some senior judge been caught fiddling with kids again? Or a major politician? Is this why we suddenly have another paedo scandal amongst the commoners?

[Letters]

:patrice:

Just got tickets for the 100m Final for the World Championships next year in London.

:dance:

[Marc Overmars]

Seeing Bolt's retirement race should be pretty cool.

[Letters]

Couldn't
Be.
More.
Excited.


Now just stay fit, you f***er, don't go anywhere NEAR Arsenal's medical team :sulk:

[Niall_Quinn]

Didn't even know the world championships are here next year. Thank fuck for that. At least it will be done properly.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Didn't even know the world championships are here next year. Thank fuck for that. At least it will be done properly.

every time you post a comment like this, i am reminded of the scene from the simpsons with the sarcasm detector "this baby is off the scale"

:lol: keep it up

[Letters]

The Olympics were done properly :shrug:
This is much smaller scale than that.

[LDG]

Friday off :dance:

[Letters]

18 working days after today. Hmm.
Although IF various people get their collective finger out I might be moving before Christmas.
Starting to look a bit unlikely now but maybe, I've heard things can move quite quickly towards the end.
If so then I'll probably need a couple of days off for that.

[LDG]

We're off from 22nd, so 16 working days :bow:

[Letters]

<_<

Estonia?

I hear it's very nice* this time of year.


* - I mean 'cold'.

[LDG]

<_<

Estonia?

I hear it's very nice* this time of year.


* - I mean 'cold'.

Nah....just company breaks up until 3rd Jan, from 22nd.

We're off to Estonia in January instead. Home for Xmas this year.

[Marc Overmars]

It's awesome when Xmas falls on a weekend like it does this year. Weekend plus extra bank holidays. :bow:

[Letters]

You say that. MrsL works every other weekend and the way it worked out this year it means she's working on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day :(

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

It's awesome when Xmas falls on a weekend like it does this year. Weekend plus extra bank holidays. :bow:

Ha it's good if you don't do shift work, as people i duty manage are finding out. As Sunday is not a bank holiday they know they have to use up their own leave quota or come in on christmas day. :cool:

[GP]

I'm off from 23rd - 3rd so it's a nice break.

I like Christmas, me.

[Letters]

Aye, me too. I've never worked in between Christmas and New Year and never plan to

[Marc Overmars]

I don't mind working over Christmas, I usually work 2 or 3 days just to make sure I don't have a ton of things to do when everyone is back in January. However this year just 3 days worth of holiday gets me the entire period off, so it would be silly not to take advantage.

[Letters]

I like the idea of being off although will probably get a bit bored towards the end.

[Letters]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38144598

Stop eating them, morans :shrug:

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38144598

Stop eating them, morans :shrug:

What's a Moran?

[Letters]

http://15130-presscdn-0-89.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/get-a-brain-morans.jpg

[Letters]

Manuel :rose:

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Manuel :rose:

Apparently he claimed John Cleese used to actually hit him rather than just pretend to during filming and it used to hurt.

[Letters]

Yeah, I heard that. There's a bit with a firepan where he really clonked him over the head, they then dump him in a case and I heard he was pretty much unconscious when they did so!

[Letters]

I'm on the moth's side, frankly

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-38175176

[Goonermerree]

Oops, Zac Goldsmith, what a plank!!

[Marc Overmars]

Is it weird that one of the gifts I've put on our wedding list is a good set of knives for the kitchen?

I'm old. :(

[Goonermerree]

Is it weird that one of the gifts I've put on our wedding list is a good set of knives for the kitchen?

I'm old. :(
Maybe not old, but you sound like a girl.

[Marc Overmars]

Hey bro, I like cooking. Don't be a hater.

[Niall_Quinn]

Is it weird that one of the gifts I've put on our wedding list is a good set of knives for the kitchen?

I'm old. :(

Good set of knives AND a good set of pans. Little admitted secret (because you'll get the pan around the side of the head) - modern gals can't cook. I think they view this as some sort of liberation, as they head off to their underpaid jobs.

[GP]

Good knives are a must.

[Niall_Quinn]

Good knives are a must.

In any marriage.

[Letters]

I thought that when we made our wedding list it would be super-fun - going round John Lewis zapping things.
But then it was "Oh look, plates!"
It's not exciting stuff
:(

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I thought that when we made our wedding list it would be super-fun - going round John Lewis zapping things.
But then it was "Oh look, plates!"
It's not exciting stuff
:(

You were I assume born with a penis, shopping should never be exciting

It's our burden.

[Letters]

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/amazon-go-launch-release-store-shop-checkout-buy-app-seattle-shelves-a7457061.html?cmpid=facebook-post

Living in the future :bow:

[Letters]

You were I assume born with a penis, shopping should never be exciting

It's our burden.

Fine, but I can get on board with shopping for DVDs or TVs. But bowls and knives, not so much.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Fine, but I can get on board with shopping for DVDs or TVs. But bowls and knives, not so much.

DVDs are obsolete, i doubt there is one thing you would want to watch that you couldn't find streamed online somewhere

TVs....well again the internet is your friend and you can probably purchase a better tv for cheaper online

The only shopping i refuse to do online is food or clothes shopping, i detest doing both but they are necessary.

[Marc Overmars]

I do the majority of my clothes shopping online. The only thing I'd purposely go out for is a suit.
Everything else I'm happy to do with the click of a few buttons. If I need to return anything I just drop it to the courier which is en route to the station I walk to every morning. Perfect.

Hate traipsing around shopping centres. Westfield is the worst, especially the one in Stratford.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I do the majority of my clothes shopping online. The only thing I'd purposely go out for is a suit.
Everything else I'm happy to do with the click of a few buttons. If I need to return anything I just drop it to the courier which is en route to the station I walk to every morning. Perfect.

Hate traipsing around shopping centres. Westfield is the worst, especially the one in Stratford.

Can deal with Westfield better than I can somewhere like Lakeside, but yeah it's all an arse ache.

[Power n Glory]

I do the majority of my clothes shopping online. The only thing I'd purposely go out for is a suit.
Everything else I'm happy to do with the click of a few buttons. If I need to return anything I just drop it to the courier which is en route to the station I walk to every morning. Perfect.

Hate traipsing around shopping centres. Westfield is the worst, especially the one in Stratford.

You've got the right idea. The amount of times I've bought the wrong size in store because I'm put off by the queue and waiting to try clothes on. :lol:

Prefer places like Westfield and Lakeside to be honest. Walking around West End is too painful.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

You've got the right idea. The amount of times I've bought the wrong size in store because I'm put off by the queue and waiting to try clothes on. :lol:

Prefer places like Westfield and Lakeside to be honest. Walking around West End is too painful.

Indeed Westfield and Lakeside are terrible but pale in comparison to Oxford Street where I went to buy to suit a few years ago

[Letters]

DVDs are obsolete, i doubt there is one thing you would want to watch that you couldn't find streamed online somewhere
It is heading that way buy we're not there yet IMO.
After my world tour I wanted to show MrsL "Good Morning Vietnam". Looked on Sky and Netflix, it was there but you had to pay. Was about as cheap to get the DVD and then I just have it to watch whenever I want.

Oh, and yes you can get a TV on the internet but where's the fun in that? I actually like going and looking at the massive curved ones. Mmm...ultra HD.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

It is heading that way buy we're not there yet IMO.
After my world tour I wanted to show MrsL "Good Morning Vietnam". Looked on Sky and Netflix, it was there but you had to pay. Was about as cheap to get the DVD and then I just have it to watch whenever I want.

Oh, and yes you can get a TV on the internet but where's the fun in that? I actually like going and looking at the massive curved ones. Mmm...ultra HD.

I guarantee you i could find Good Morning Vietnam (though i'm not sure why i'd want to find that or any film with Robin Williams in) on an internet stream, where it will play at the same visual quality as you'd get for the DVD.....the difference?....1) You wouldn't pay for it and 2) the stream doesn't take up endless Ikea shelves full of space.

The fun is not having to mingle with other human beings and their slow lumbering ways and their awful tantrum throwing kids.

Like i say for me clothes shopping and food shopping is the chore, restaurants and pubs are the reward

Other than that i see no reason to go out at all other than to go to work, go round to a mates or family members house, when i need to buy some fags from the local shop or when i get cleaning and bathroom products cheaper from the discount bargain stores.

Oh and yeah hair cuts, dentist/doctors and other intermittent stuff like that

And unless i'm on holiday these are rules i live by especially this time of year.

[Niall_Quinn]

I guarantee you i could find Good Morning Vietnam (though i'm not sure why i'd want to find that or any film with Robin Williams in) on an internet stream, where it will play at the same visual quality as you'd get for the DVD.....the difference?....1) You wouldn't pay for it and 2) the stream doesn't take up endless Ikea shelves full of space.

The fun is not having to mingle with other human beings and their slow lumbering ways and their awful tantrum throwing kids.

Like i say for me clothes shopping and food shopping is the chore, restaurants and pubs are the reward

Other than that i see no reason to go out at all other than to go to work, go round to a mates or family members house, when i need to buy some fags from the local shop or when i get cleaning and bathroom products cheaper from the discount bargain stores.

Oh and yeah hair cuts, dentist/doctors and other intermittent stuff like that

And unless i'm on holiday these are rules i live by especially this time of year.

Three ghosts on the way.

[GP]

I actually like going and looking at the massive curved ones.

Me too ##

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Three ghosts on the way.

They're all going up the hoover and i don't empty the bag often

[Power n Glory]

I guarantee you i could find Good Morning Vietnam (though i'm not sure why i'd want to find that or any film with Robin Williams in) on an internet stream, where it will play at the same visual quality as you'd get for the DVD.....the difference?....1) You wouldn't pay for it and 2) the stream doesn't take up endless Ikea shelves full of space.

The fun is not having to mingle with other human beings and their slow lumbering ways and their awful tantrum throwing kids.

Like i say for me clothes shopping and food shopping is the chore, restaurants and pubs are the reward

Other than that i see no reason to go out at all other than to go to work, go round to a mates or family members house, when i need to buy some fags from the local shop or when i get cleaning and bathroom products cheaper from the discount bargain stores.

Oh and yeah hair cuts, dentist/doctors and other intermittent stuff like that

And unless i'm on holiday these are rules i live by especially this time of year.

I wish barbers made house visits by appointment! :lol:

Agree with the DVD thing. Takes up too much room so I've stopped buying them. Same goes for books now that I have a Kindle.

Also, with image quality constantly changing, I'm not upgrading formats anymore. Managed to replace all my essential VHS movie collection with DVD's. Moved on from DVD to Blu Ray. Now the fuckers are pushing 4K disc format. The jump from DVD to Blu Ray put me off and I'm not replacing my Star Wars and Godfather collection again.

[Kano]

Vinyl outsold digital downloads last week :lol:

Old people and hipsters :doh:

[Letters]

I guarantee you i could find Good Morning Vietnam (though i'm not sure why i'd want to find that or any film with Robin Williams in) on an internet stream, where it will play at the same visual quality as you'd get for the DVD.....the difference?....1) You wouldn't pay for it and 2) the stream doesn't take up endless Ikea shelves full of space.
I'm sure you could, but you could steal the DVD too :shrug:
I'd prefer to have it legally and available when I want. Plus actually, I like having a collection of books or CDs or DVDs. Having a Kindle just isn't the same, to me.

Not a huge fan of shopping in general and overall I do prefer to do things online, Oxford Street at this time of year is a nightmare.

PS: PnG's comment on formats and quality, I don't think it's going to get much better than 4k - personally I'm not convinced I could tell the difference between HD and 4K anyway, maybe on a really big screen.

[Kano]

You can just buy a digital version of the film perfectly legally too.

I used to have thousands of vinyl records, sold them all off. CD's are gathering dust and will go the same route. Never been a DVD collector despite my film addiction, as I get them online. Books are getting out of control though - I do prefer having a book to read rather than a white screen with text on a tablet.

[Letters]

I do get that it's convenient to have it all digitally and accessible immediately on some device. There is something about having the collection too though. DVDs also have all the extra features and that although admittedly it's rare I look at them.

I think having the collection applies particularly to books although they do get out of control. IMO the Kindle solves a problem which doesn't exist - on a train you might well want to listen to some music and want to be able to pick anything out of your collection. People don't read books like that, they generally read one at a time so having a whole collection you can carry around isn't an issue. I have heard older people say they're useful because you can increase the font size.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I'm sure you could, but you could steal the DVD too :shrug:
I'd prefer to have it legally and available when I want. Plus actually, I like having a collection of books or CDs or DVDs. Having a Kindle just isn't the same, to me.

Not a huge fan of shopping in general and overall I do prefer to do things online, Oxford Street at this time of year is a nightmare.

PS: PnG's comment on formats and quality, I don't think it's going to get much better than 4k - personally I'm not convinced I could tell the difference between HD and 4K anyway, maybe on a really big screen.

What's more likely to get you arrested?. I take it you've never watched an episode of an old comedy series on You Tube before it's eventually taken down...same difference

[Letters]

No, I haven't. The one time I did snap and stream a TV show was a Lost episode - this was before the On Demand stuff got good and my stupid Sky box balled up the recording so I managed to find it online but I figured I'd paid for it anyway so didn't feel too bad.

And I don't think the likelihood of getting caught is the basis on which one should decide whether to steal something!

[Niall_Quinn]

No, I haven't. The one time I did snap and stream a TV show was a Lost episode - this was before the On Demand stuff got good and my stupid Sky box balled up the recording so I managed to find it online but I figured I'd paid for it anyway so didn't feel too bad.

And I don't think the likelihood of getting caught is the basis on which one should decide whether to steal something!

Thief!

[Letters]

You'll never catch me alive!


:run:

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

No, I haven't. The one time I did snap and stream a TV show was a Lost episode - this was before the On Demand stuff got good and my stupid Sky box balled up the recording so I managed to find it online but I figured I'd paid for it anyway so didn't feel too bad.

And I don't think the likelihood of getting caught is the basis on which one should decide whether to steal something!

ah the christian ethos in play

But then I suppose the difference is, to me morality is more innate where as to believers we wouldn't have anymore idea of what was right or wrong than an earwig if not for the commandments on Mount Sinai.

Do I believe theft is wrong? yes, am i able to sleep at night watching something online i didn't pay for? funnily enough also yes.......how can two things exist so contradictory of each other. Because theft is relative and i think the entertainment industry has perpetrated legal theft on us for long enough....so whilst i might not be a pikey and slip a dvd under my jacket in a HMV store, it's not going to lie heavy on my conscience to benefit from someone else's copyright theft.

Although of course you could argue why should one form of theft be more acceptable than another, but i didn't make the social acceptability rules.

[Niall_Quinn]

You'll never catch me alive!


:run:

Dead's just as good.

[Niall_Quinn]

ah the christian ethos in play

But then I suppose the difference is, to me morality is more innate where as to believers we wouldn't have anymore idea of what was right or wrong than an earwig if not for the commandments on Mount Sinai.

Do I believe theft is wrong? yes, am i able to sleep at night watching something online i didn't pay for? funnily enough also yes.......how can two things exist so contradictory of each other. Because theft is relative and i think the entertainment industry has perpetrated legal theft on us for long enough....so whilst i might not be a pikey and slip a dvd under my jacket in a HMV store, it's not going to lie heavy on my conscience to benefit from someone else's copyright theft.

Although of course you could argue why should one form of theft be more acceptable than another, but i didn't make the social acceptability rules.

HDCP so paying customers get screwed and the pirates stroll around it? Fuck all that, a pirate's life for me, yo ho. What you have to ask yourself, was Robin Hood a thief? I pinch digital media from the rich to give to the poor. Namely me.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

HDCP so paying customers get screwed and the pirates stroll around it? Fuck all that, a pirate's life for me, yo ho. What you have to ask yourself, was Robin Hood a thief? I pinch digital media from the rich to give to the poor. Namely me.

Pretty much, it's hardly free from moral ambiguity but you take from what you can get in this life

[Letters]

But then I suppose the difference is, to me morality is more innate where as to believers we wouldn't have anymore idea of what was right or wrong than an earwig if not for the commandments on Mount Sinai.
That isn't what believers think at all :lol: Well, it's not what I think.
Always find it interesting how little non-believers know about what they say they don't believe in!

[Niall_Quinn]

That isn't what believers think at all :lol: Well, it's not what I think.
Always find it interesting how little non-believers know about what they say they don't believe in!

How much do you need to know about the church to not believe in it?

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

That isn't what believers think at all :lol: Well, it's not what I think.
Always find it interesting how little non-believers know about what they say they don't believe in!

actually the reverse is true, non believers on the whole know far more about the faiths than the adherents do

that you choose not to believe without god or the ten commandments you'd have no idea of morality is contrary to christian teaching and only goes to show the dilettante approach most Christians take to make their faith compatible with modern society.

[Power n Glory]

I'm sure you could, but you could steal the DVD too :shrug:
I'd prefer to have it legally and available when I want. Plus actually, I like having a collection of books or CDs or DVDs. Having a Kindle just isn't the same, to me.

Not a huge fan of shopping in general and overall I do prefer to do things online, Oxford Street at this time of year is a nightmare.

PS: PnG's comment on formats and quality, I don't think it's going to get much better than 4k - personally I'm not convinced I could tell the difference between HD and 4K anyway, maybe on a really big screen.


Blu Ray should have been the last of physical format but they’ve been pushing for more. 3D Blu Ray’s flopped and now they’re trying to push 4K discs. Not falling for it. It's all about streaming anyway.

[Power n Glory]

I do get that it's convenient to have it all digitally and accessible immediately on some device. There is something about having the collection too though. DVDs also have all the extra features and that although admittedly it's rare I look at them.

I think having the collection applies particularly to books although they do get out of control. IMO the Kindle solves a problem which doesn't exist - on a train you might well want to listen to some music and want to be able to pick anything out of your collection. People don't read books like that, they generally read one at a time so having a whole collection you can carry around isn't an issue. I have heard older people say they're useful because you can increase the font size.

Kindle solves a problem. Speed and convenience along with space. Like what’s happened with music and TV, if I want a certain book I don’t have to go searching around the shops for it. Especially if it’s a rare book. You sometimes had to wait weeks for a book when ordering of Amazon. Also, it’s much easier to hold the Kindle with one hand on the train. Some book are too bulky for that.

[Letters]

that you choose not to believe without god or the ten commandments you'd have no idea of morality is contrary to christian teaching
What's the Bible verse which says that?

[Letters]

How much do you need to know about the church to not believe in it?

This is nothing to do with the church, but you should know enough about what Scripture claims to make an informed decision.
As C.S. Lewis said, Christianity, if true, is the most important thing in the world and if false the least important. What it can't be is moderately important.

[GP]

John Glenn has passed away.

[Niall_Quinn]

This is nothing to do with the church, but you should know enough about what Scripture claims to make an informed decision.
As C.S. Lewis said, Christianity, if true, is the most important thing in the world and if false the least important. What it can't be is moderately important.

It has everything to do with the church. That's where all the rules and regulations for organised religion originate. Any religious belief related to organised religion is simply belief in what the church of that religion dictates. Scripture is man made. The real God, whether it is nature, an ultra advanced species, some other elemental force, requires precisely zero knowledge or even understanding because nobody anywhere, least of all the churches, have any knowledge or understanding of such a force or entity. All they have is the stuff man wrote down.

[Niall_Quinn]

John Glenn has passed away.

Brave (or insane) guy. 95 was a good innings though and he had a hell of a life.

[Letters]

It has everything to do with the church. That's where all the rules and regulations for organised religion originate. Any religious belief related to organised religion is simply belief in what the church of that religion dictates. Scripture is man made. The real God, whether it is nature, an ultra advanced species, some other elemental force, requires precisely zero knowledge or even understanding because nobody anywhere, least of all the churches, have any knowledge or understanding of such a force or entity. All they have is the stuff man wrote down.
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" - 2 Timothy 3:16

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

What's the Bible verse which says that?

Right so the Ten Commandments issued on Mount Sinai (most of them shite anyway) but including Thou shalt not Steal and Thou shalt not Kill were not taught as Moral imperatives?.

And Moses wasn't when laying down these commandments an instrument of God?

Therefore God is telling you, you can't steal or can't kill because he doesn't believe you can figure these things out for yourself.

That's the point, the Ten Commandments apart from showing that your God is insecure and doesn't like competition (Thou shalt not have any God but me) mandates that Morality is not inate something we developed evolving from a state of nature , rather that without decree from a higher power we shouldn't know theft and murder is wrong.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Brave (or insane) guy. 95 was a good innings though and he had a hell of a life.

For once I agree with you unequivocally

[Niall_Quinn]

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" - 2 Timothy 3:16

Take Tim's word for it, right? Or is he more than a man?

[Letters]

Take Tim's word for it, right? Or is he more than a man?

None of the people who wrote the texts which have become The Bible were more than men, but we believe the writings were inspired by God.
You clearly don't, fine. We'll agree to disagree.

[Letters]

Right so the Ten Commandments issued on Mount Sinai (most of them shite anyway) but including Thou shalt not Steal and Thou shalt not Kill were not taught as Moral imperatives?.

And Moses wasn't when laying down these commandments an instrument of God?

Therefore God is telling you, you can't steal or can't kill because he doesn't believe you can figure these things out for yourself.

That's the point, the Ten Commandments apart from showing that your God is insecure and doesn't like competition (Thou shalt not have any God but me) mandates that Morality is not inate something we developed evolving from a state of nature , rather that without decree from a higher power we shouldn't know theft and murder is wrong.
Where in Scripture does it say any of this? If you want to talk about what Christians believe you have to start with Scripture.

Genesis 3 makes it clear that morality is innate.

Romans 19 says that the law was given was given not because we wouldn't know better otherwise, but to remind us of our imperfection and to highlight that we can't live up to God's standards (hence the need for Jesus' sacrifice to deal with the problem of sin)

And God doesn't have any competition, again that's just a reminder that we shouldn't put other things before him.

[Niall_Quinn]

None of the people who wrote the texts which have become The Bible were more than men, but we believe the writings were inspired by God.
You clearly don't, fine. We'll agree to disagree.

So how do you know the computer code I'm going to write today won't be inspired by God? Chances are it will, I'm pretty good.

We DON'T agree to disagree, we disagree to agree. What we do is leave it at you stating people require some sort of knowledge to judge these religious things, without proving that to be true. That wasn't my opening claim, it was yours. I don't care who believes what about anything, no problem to me at all. It only becomes a problem when believers try to impose rights on commentary based on the extent of the belief. It's a bit like that shitty voting mantra. "If you don't vote, you can't complain...", well YES YOU FUCKING CAN! Who said you can't? Some apostle of democracy? Fuck him or her - here's my complaint right now, open wide.

[Niall_Quinn]

Right so the Ten Commandments issued on Mount Sinai (most of them shite anyway) but including Thou shalt not Steal and Thou shalt not Kill were not taught as Moral imperatives?.

And Moses wasn't when laying down these commandments an instrument of God?

Therefore God is telling you, you can't steal or can't kill because he doesn't believe you can figure these things out for yourself.

That's the point, the Ten Commandments apart from showing that your God is insecure and doesn't like competition (Thou shalt not have any God but me) mandates that Morality is not inate something we developed evolving from a state of nature , rather that without decree from a higher power we shouldn't know theft and murder is wrong.

That's the role of the church, to set the rules for the masses and then set the terms under which those with special dispensation can flagrantly break the rules. Thou shalt not do any of this shit unless we tell you. Now go and slaughter the infidels in the name of God, covet their stuff and impregnate thy neighbour's wife. Because the church has lost out to the political technocrats of late (so it is said), the relative lack of murder, pillage and rape is used as a beacon for progressiveness. Give the church back its power and I wonder how long that progress would last.

Reminds me of the religion of government and the new, emerging but virulent environmental religion. Laws that may not be disputed, punishments for the unbelievers. Hypocrisy in the upper echelons, mounting misery in the ranks.

I'm wondering if humanity could do with a break from leaders for a while.

[Letters]

Of course you need knowledge to make a judgement, otherwise what is your judgement based on?
If I said Muslims believe the moon is made of green cheese then I should at least have looked into that to see whether they do.
If I haven't then I'd fully expect a Muslim to tell me I'm talking nonsense.
You can say what you like, obviously. But if you're talking balls then I'm going to call you on it.

[Niall_Quinn]

Of course you need knowledge to make a judgement, otherwise what is your judgement based on?
If I said Muslims believe the moon is made of green cheese then I should at least have looked into that to see whether they do.
You can say what you like, obviously. But if you're talking balls then I'm going to call you on it.

The irony drips into the river and flows to the sea.

Have you been following the resurgence of the flat-earth theory? I kid you not. I haven't looked into it in depth because in some ways the very premise strikes me as fucking insane. Therefore I can't really comment one way or the other, even as the ship disappears over the horizon and then reappears behind me a month later. When I have studied this flat earth scripture I plan to come out against it. Until then, I remain in ignorance and subject to the slings and arrows of the flat-earthers who "call me out" on my bullshit denials.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

And God doesn't have any competition, again that's just a reminder that we shouldn't put other things before him.

So in essence your God is an egotistical maniac, never mind your family or anyone else...I come first

Doesn't matter how capricious I am, and how i look on indifferently when thousands/millions die from murdering each other or disease

I'm glad we agree on that, and this is why I'm glad that there is no good evidence to suggest that such a being exists

Also if Genesis states that morality is inate than it only goes to show how contradictory your holy book is, for if it is inate than there is no reason for the Ten Commandments in the first place (which I repeat are Moral Imperatives).

[Letters]

Also if Genesis states that morality is inate than it only goes to show how contradictory your holy book is, for if it is inate than there is no reason for the Ten Commandments in the first place (which I repeat are Moral Imperatives).
I've just told you the reason :).

I'm arguing based on Scripture - which is the basis for all Christian beliefs. You're arguing based on nothing at all.

[Letters]

Have you been following the resurgence of the flat-earth theory? I kid you not.
Yes, I've heard they have members all around the globe.


:rimshot:

[Niall_Quinn]

I've just told you the reason :).

I'm arguing based on Scripture - which is the basis for all Christian beliefs. You're arguing based on nothing at all.

Well isn't he arguing on, HELLO, here I am in the real world, knock, knock, it's made of wood! But I agree, he's failed to put a dent in your faith based doctrine, which is definitely not "nothing at all" or made-up. God forbid.

[Niall_Quinn]

Yes, I've heard they have members all around the globe.


:rimshot:

Yes true - not worth the deep arguments.

All I will say - BY THEIR ACTIONS LET THEM BE KNOWN. That's what I live by and that is, or should be, compatible with every religion, every philosophy, every political doctrine. If Moses had come down from the mountain and laid that one out as the One Directive then I'd be onboard. Jesus had a decent campaign line too - Love thy neighbour as yourself. If we followed that then the world would be transformed and the only problem we'd have is the paedo politicians claiming they were finally justified. Oh, and John Terry.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I've just told you the reason :).

I'm arguing based on Scripture - which is the basis for all Christian beliefs. You're arguing based on nothing at all.

You are arguing based on Scripture?

Interesting

So you think Women should be subservient to men in all things?

Commandments for slaves to obey their masters whether they are kind or cruel are ok?

Homosexuality is an abomination

Think people should die if they wear clothing woven of two different kinds of material

That if you have a son who is stubborn or rebellious he should be stoned to death

Think that disabled people should be denied access to the Houses of God?


Or are you indeed like all Christians a dilettante and actually pick and choose what you want to believe or don't.

[Letters]

Well isn't he arguing on, HELLO, here I am in the real world, knock, knock, it's made of wood! But I agree, he's failed to put a dent in your faith based doctrine, which is definitely not "nothing at all" or made-up. God forbid.

We have failed to put a dent in each other's opinions.
Strange really, most debates on the internet end in one person conceding the other person was correct and changing their position...

I'm just a little weary of being told what Christians believe by people who clearly have no idea what Christians believe and then being told I'm wrong when I dispute that.
The starting point for what Christians believe should always be Scripture. That is true whether our beliefs are valid or not.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Yes true - not worth the deep arguments.

All I will say - BY THEIR ACTIONS LET THEM BE KNOWN. That's what I live by and that is, or should be, compatible with every religion, every philosophy, every political doctrine. If Moses had come down from the mountain and laid that one out as the One Directive then I'd be onboard. Jesus had a decent campaign line too - Love thy neighbour as yourself. If we followed that then the world would be transformed and the only problem we'd have is the paedo politicians claiming they were finally justified. Oh, and John Terry.

Jesus also decided that you should love thy enemy, and turn the other cheek, he also has an issue with people planning ahead "give no more thought to the morrow"

He also cursed a fig tree which was pretty petty minded of him :lol:

[Letters]

You are arguing based on Scripture?
Well, you are telling me what Christians believe. OK, so back that up with some Scripture. It's not a big ask. That is the basis for Christian beliefs.
Your starting point in all this was that without the commandments we would have no clue what is right or wrong.
Have you heard the church preaching that? Where in the Bible does it say that?

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

We have failed to put a dent in each other's opinions.
Strange really, most debates on the internet end in one person conceding the other person was correct and changing their position...

I'm just a little weary of being told what Christians believe by people who clearly have no idea what Christians believe and then being told I'm wrong when I dispute that.
The starting point for what Christians believe should always be Scripture. That is true whether our beliefs are valid or not.

I only ask because most christians don't live according to scripture, otherwise they would be going round raping, stoning and enslaving each other.....actually maybe they do....:lol:

[Letters]

All I will say - BY THEIR ACTIONS LET THEM BE KNOWN. That's what I live by and that is, or should be, compatible with every religion, every philosophy, every political doctrine. If Moses had come down from the mountain and laid that one out as the One Directive then I'd be onboard. Jesus had a decent campaign line too - Love thy neighbour as yourself. If we followed that then the world would be transformed and the only problem we'd have is the paedo politicians claiming they were finally justified. Oh, and John Terry.
I'd pretty much agree with that till you got a bit silly at the end :lol:

[Letters]

I only ask because most christians don't live according to scripture, otherwise they would be going round raping, stoning and enslaving each other.....actually maybe they do....:lol:

You should have read the end. I gets better...

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Well, you are telling me what Christians believe. OK, so back that up with some Scripture. It's not a big ask. That is the basis for Christian beliefs.
Your starting point in all this was that without the commandments we would have no clue what is right or wrong.
Have you heard the church preaching that? Where in the Bible does it say that?

Ok let's just take one example - Homosexuality

Homosexuality in the words of St Paul "In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and in their own persons the due penalty for their error"

Leviticus - "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman, it is an abomination".

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination, they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them"

I'd say that was pretty unequivocal, if you want a passage for any of the other examples i cited please do just ask.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

You should have read the end. I gets better...

But that's my point my dear Letters, Modern Christians cherry pick what part of scripture suits them. I would argue that the New Testament is just as grotesque in different ways as the Old, but let's not pretend that you can take the New Testament independent of the Old....it's all the Bible.

[Niall_Quinn]

You are arguing based on Scripture?

Interesting

So you think Women should be subservient to men in all things?

Commandments for slaves to obey their masters whether they are kind or cruel are ok?

Homosexuality is an abomination

Think people should die if they wear clothing woven of two different kinds of material

That if you have a son who is stubborn or rebellious he should be stoned to death

Think that disabled people should be denied access to the Houses of God?


Or are you indeed like all Christians a dilettante and actually pick and choose what you want to believe or don't.

:gp:

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

:gp:

Is that in reference to the whole post or just what you've highlighted in bold?

[Niall_Quinn]

Jesus also decided that you should love thy enemy, and turn the other cheek, he also has an issue with people planning ahead "give no more thought to the morrow"

He also cursed a fig tree which was pretty petty minded of him :lol:

I didn't say I liked the album, just a couple of tracks.

[Niall_Quinn]

Is that in reference to the whole post or just what you've highlighted in bold?

Just the bit about abominable fags. I think I loathe them so much, not because they stick their dicks in shitholes and spread disease, but because I'm a secret queer and therefore overcompensating.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Just the bit about abominable fags. I think I loathe them so much, not because they stick their dicks in shitholes and spread disease, but because I'm a secret queer and therefore overcompensating.

well as long as you're happy

or not as the case may be

[Letters]

But that's my point my dear Letters, Modern Christians cherry pick what part of scripture suits them. I would argue that the New Testament is just as grotesque in different ways as the Old, but let's not pretend that you can take the New Testament independent of the Old....it's all the Bible.

I wouldn't say we cherry pick, more try to understand it in the context of an unfolding revelation over a long time-span, in human terms.
But I'm never going to argue someone in to faith.
The original point was, and remains, you (and you're not the only one) seem to over-estimate your knowledge of what Christians actually believe. Which makes me wonder on what basis you've rejected it all.
The Bible does not say that without the commandments we would have no clue what is right and wrong - that was your initial assertion as to "what Christians believe". It actually says the reverse, you then asked why we have the commandments and I pointed you at the relevant Bible passage.

There is no point in getting into a long, fruitless discussion of whether this belief system is right or wrong or whatever, those debates never get anywhere, neither side concedes and ground and they just go round and round. Just don't claim to have more knowledge about it all than you do.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I wouldn't say we cherry pick, more try to understand it in the context of an unfolding revelation over a long time-span, in human terms.
But I'm never going to argue someone in to faith.
The original point was, and remains, you (and you're not the only one) seem to over-estimate your knowledge of what Christians actually believe. Which makes me wonder on what basis you've rejected it all.
The Bible does not say that without the commandments we would have no clue what is right and wrong - that was your initial assertion as to "what Christians believe". It actually says the reverse, you then asked why we have the commandments and I pointed you at the relevant Bible passage.

There is no point in getting into a long, fruitless discussion of whether this belief system is right or wrong or whatever, those debates never get anywhere, neither side concedes and ground and they just go round and round. Just don't claim to have more knowledge about it all than you do.

You haven't refuted anything, I'm still saying to you that the ten commandments as a moral imperative are telling people what they should hold to be right or wrong. And regardless of what Genesis might say, even if it holds that morality is innate it still comes from God, and that without this celestial monster giving us the ability to determine right from wrong we would have no idea.

So for a Christian whether it's pre-programmed or not, the answer to everything is because God commands it so, not "because it is the right thing or it is the wrong thing" because without God neither concept would exist.

That's the case whether people knew theft and murder weren't kosher before reaching Mount Sinai or whether they were moral reinforcements.

And your first sentence is a kop out, the fact is so much of the bible's teachings if not apocryphal have no bearing or relevance in today's modern age.....but instead of accepting that should be the case for the entire Book you decide that a lot of it is metaphor and believe you can derive wisdom from something written by bronze age savages.

Now i accept that's your hypocrisy and you are entitled to it, and ultimately whatever i think of your nonsense i am happy for that to be that, but will always tell you and your ilk where to go whenever I see them proselytising

[Niall_Quinn]

well as long as you're happy

or not as the case may be

Doing anything tonight?

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Doing anything tonight?

Yep, going kerb crawling with David Pleat....I advised him to wait until his psoriasis had cleared up, but you know what's he like

[Letters]

You haven't refuted anything, I'm still saying to you that the ten commandments as a moral imperative are telling people what they should hold to be right or wrong. And regardless of what Genesis might say, even if it holds that morality is innate it still comes from God, and that without this celestial monster giving us the ability to determine right from wrong we would have no idea.
OK, well you're changing your argument if you're now saying that Christians think we only have morality because God pre-programmed us to have it. Your original assertion was:


But then I suppose the difference is, to me morality is more innate where as to believers we wouldn't have anymore idea of what was right or wrong than an earwig if not for the commandments on Mount Sinai.

Not true. Not Christian teaching. Not backed up by Scripture.


I didn't say anything was metaphor by the way.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

OK, well you're changing your argument if you're now saying that Christians think we only have morality because God pre-programmed us to have it. Your original assertion was:



Not true. Not Christian teaching. Not backed up by Scripture.


I didn't say anything was metaphor by the way.

The commandments on Mount Sinai are God's moral imperatives are they not, so whether they were given to people on Mount Sinai or part of an earlier imprimatur doesn't really matter. The assertion remains that without God, you have no greater understanding of what's right or wrong than an invertebrate.

As for Genesis claiming Morality is innate I am more or less taking your word for that.

[Letters]

I've told you what the commandments are and why they were given.
I've given you the references if you want to check.

[Niall_Quinn]

I've told you what the commandments are and why they were given.
I've given you the references if you want to check.

Do you genuinely believe Moses existed and was given a bunch of commandments by God on a mountain top? I mean really, in your gut?

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Do you genuinely believe Moses existed and was given a bunch of commandments by God on a mountain top? I mean really, in your gut?

I actually can well believe something like this happened, that some bearded guy carved some stuff onto stone tablets and told people he was the emissary of God because if he hadn't even then the other savages would have said "well i wasn't going to thieve or murder someone anyway, but who are you to tell me not to do those things?"

[Power n Glory]

Herb - you obviously have some issues going on. Take this argument to whatever preacher touched you inappropriately. :lol: It has nothing to do with Letters and what he believes. Or at least I hope not. :lol:

[WMUG]

Killer whales have massive knobs.

http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com/images/fitted/340x180/The-Largest-Penis-in-the-World.jpg

[GP]

Dork

[Letters]

Do you genuinely believe Moses existed and was given a bunch of commandments by God on a mountain top? I mean really, in your gut?

Yes

[Xhaka Can’t]

The best post on this thread for the past 3 pages has been a photo of a whale's knob.

GW RIP

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Herb - you obviously have some issues going on. Take this argument to whatever preacher touched you inappropriately. :lol: It has nothing to do with Letters and what he believes. Or at least I hope not. :lol:

He's a big boy (alright no he isn't) he can take it.

In fact Jesus told his followers to expect to be ridiculed for their beliefs, so in essence I am fufilling biblical prophecy :lol:

Frankly I believe I would be being patronising to Letters if I didn't tell him that I thought his religion was a load of pernicious nonsense that hopefully in time man will grow up out of altogether.

[Power n Glory]

Would be much better if you grew up. It's making you look bad.

[Niall_Quinn]

The best post on this thread for the past 3 pages has been a photo of a whale's knob.

GW RIP

I've seen bigger.

[Niall_Quinn]

He's a big boy (alright no he isn't) he can take it.

In fact Jesus told his followers to expect to be ridiculed for their beliefs, so in essence I am fufilling biblical prophecy :lol:

Frankly I believe I would be being patronising to Letters if I didn't tell him that I thought his religion was a load of pernicious nonsense that hopefully in time man will grow up out of altogether.

And then if we grew up and out of government for an encore, job done.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Would be much better if you grew up. It's making you look bad.

Its called debate, if I don't have respect for a religion it seems pointless and anodyne to debate it respectfully

And I'm being honest in what I'm saying about Christianity, Letters has the right to believe whatever he wants but he doesn't have the right for his beliefs to be beyond scrutiny (and to be fair on him, he has never objected to having his Religion mocked and he can be just as robust in defending it or mocking non believers).

And that you think it makes me look bad is frankly neither here nor there.

[Power n Glory]

You call that a 'debate'? I wouldn't. Nobody asked for your opinion on religion or for you to respect it. You decided to bring it up for some reason.