Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sunak is coming out of this with his reputation enhanced – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,218
edited June 2023 in General
imageSunak is coming out of this with his reputation enhanced – politicalbetting.com

Tuesday’s papers are just coming in and inevitably the public row between Sunak and Johnson is dominating the front pages.

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited June 2023
    Jeremy Hunt: “Public sector output is 5.7% lower than pre-pandemic compared to the private sector which is 1.3% higher. Our job creators, entrepreneurs … have bounced back but the public sector is still feeling the effects of a once-in-a- lifetime pandemic.

    Hunt: “I have asked John Glen, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, to lead a major public sector productivity programme across all government departments which we will report on in the Autumn….

    … He will assess how we can increase public sector productivity growth, both in the short and long term, and look at what it would take to deliver the additional 0.5% every year that would stop the state growing ever bigger.”
    https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1668335783332417539?s=20
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,690
    Farooq said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    ^ this.

    If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

    It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

    If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
    I knew I liked you. :)

    First class response.
  • Farooq said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    ^ this.

    If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

    It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

    If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
    Absolutely and wholeheartedly agreed. Couldn't put it better myself.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited June 2023
    Farooq said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    ^ this.

    If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

    It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

    If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
    No it doesn't, you just got sent to a concentration camp if it is Mein Kampf you criticised, a Gulag if it was the Communist manifesto you criticised and risk a Fatwa of death if it is the Qu'ran you mock and criticise.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,690
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    ^ this.

    If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

    It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

    If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
    I knew I liked you. :)

    First class response.
    Don't worry, I'll go back to finding ways to annoy you before long. It's in my book "Farooq is usually an arse". Can I persuade you to take this pamphlet or do you prefer eternal damnation?
    I think I am already heading for eternal damnation if god is real. At least, much like PB, I will be in better company than the alternative. :)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    edited June 2023
    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    ^ this.

    If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

    It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

    If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
    No it doesn't, you just got sent to a concentration camp if it is Mein Kampf you criticised, a Gulag if it was the Communist manifesto you criticised and risk a Fatwa of death if it is the Qu'ran you mock and criticise.
    I feel like you somewhat miss the point on this. It's to your and your cohorts credit that that doesn't happen when people mock the bible or christian beliefs. It's more grown up and mature not to respond like a violent toddler and expect people to accept it becasue it is a 'belief'.

    It is deeply depressing that that is not the case on some other things people should feel free to criticise. And we shouldn't feel grateful we can get away with it with Christianity, we should be worried we cannot with others.

    It's like being grateful the government doesn't arbitrarily lock us up and torture us for criticising it, like happens in many places - that's great, but it's kind of the bare minimum we expect.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    'NADINE DORRIES: The sinister forces that stopped me, a girl, born into poverty in Liverpool, from reaching the House of Lords'
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12187013/NADINE-DORRIES-sinister-forces-stopped-girl-reaching-House-Lords.html
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,657
    edited June 2023
    I heard Sunak before I sailed from Liverpool and he was not only impressive, but seemingly ready to start the process of ridding the party of Johnson and his diminishing band of sycophantic disciples

    Indeed it has to succeed, just as Starmer has with Corbyn, and in so doing he will gain respect and support
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    I'd like to think Boris is actually telling the truth, because it would mean he is facing the classic problem of a liar plaintively whining that they are being lied about, and that would be very funny.

    As for Sunak, well, he might come out of it with his reputation enhanced, but that's not exactly changing the general direction of travel much.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited June 2023
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    ^ this.

    If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

    It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

    If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
    No it doesn't, you just got sent to a concentration camp if it is Mein Kampf you criticised, a Gulag if it was the Communist manifesto you criticised and risk a Fatwa of death if it is the Qu'ran you mock and criticise.
    I feel like you somewhat miss the point on this. It's to your and your cohorts credit that that doesn't happen when people mock the bible or christian beliefs. It's more grown up and mature not to respond like a violent toddler and expect people to accept it becasue it is a 'belief'.

    It is deeply depressing that that is not the case on some other things people should feel free to criticise. And we shouldn't feel grateful we can get away with it with Christianity, we should be worried we cannot with others.

    It's like being grateful the government doesn't arbitrarily lock us up and torture us for criticising it, like happens in many places - that's great, but it's kind of the bare minimum we expect.
    Of course in the 16th centuries Christian nations did burn alive heretics and indeed those of other denominations (as we did in England under Roman Catholicism and early Anglicanism) but we are rather more tolerant now
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    HYUFD said:

    'NADINE DORRIES: The sinister forces that stopped me, a girl, born into poverty in Liverpool, from reaching the House of Lords'
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12187013/NADINE-DORRIES-sinister-forces-stopped-girl-reaching-House-Lords.html

    You'd know better than me - does this sort of thing work on the base?

    I mean, her instant resignation out of pique and this sort of thing makes it super clear that any issues she has with Sunak (or the 'sinister forces') extend no further than when it inconvenienced her being given a nice prize she was promised.

    It's not exactly stirring up my proletarian rage at the establishment that her hero was unable to secure her the peerage he obviously told her was a sure thing.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,657
    edited June 2023
    HYUFD said:

    'NADINE DORRIES: The sinister forces that stopped me, a girl, born into poverty in Liverpool, from reaching the House of Lords'
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12187013/NADINE-DORRIES-sinister-forces-stopped-girl-reaching-House-Lords.html

    Maybe look at yourself Dorries

    No way should you ever have been promised a peerage, and Sunak making it clear you are not getting one is spot on
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    OK I’ve made it to Alexandria. It is indeed pleasant. Thank you for the sound advice to come here. I now need oysters in a relaxed setting. Suggestions welcome
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    edited June 2023

    .

    Sean_F said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    Yea but you believe in Brexit which is a far far more ludicrous and illogical religion than any of HY's beliefs. I mean, you believed in Boris Johnson!! lol.

    The reality is Barty, you remind me of people of undeveloped intellect who think it makes them look very big and witty to compare religion with Father Christmas and fairies (in fact I recall you making such a juvenile and uninformed suggestion), when in fact most of your political beliefs are so all over the place that I think you would believe anything that was told to you by someone that you like/hero worshipped , particularly if it aligned with your personal gripes and prejudices, or perhaps they painted it on the side of a bus. The Judeo-Christian tradition has given us most of our civilisation and ability to reason critically, but it has clearly left little mark on you. Your critique of religion is generally misinformed at best and basically moronic at worst. I'd stay off the subject if I were as misinformed as you. Stick to something you can relate to like planning policy. It requires less thought.
    I would not ever compare religion to Father Christmas. The latter is real.

    I am Father Christmas for my kids, as my parents were before me and for me. Millions of people spend every December creating the magic of Christmas and ensuring that Father Christmas is real for their children.

    That's totally different to grown ups believing that sky fairies have decreed an absolute set of rules which should be enforced exactly as their prejudices happen to align or else you're a sinner.

    Our civilisation owes far more to the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans than it does Judeo-Christianism which jumped on the bandwagon of pre-existing civilisation.
    The ancient world, pre conversion to Christianity, is fascinating, but a place whose notions of right and wrong, and proper conduct, would be utterly alien and shocking to modern Western people. Much more alien than medieval Europe would be.
    This might be surprising to you, but there's this concept I believe in called 'evolution'.

    Our society has evolved from ancient times to today. Our society has evolved within my own lifetime. In my own lifetime we've evolved from gays being ostracised and unable to get married to completely accepted. We've evolved from ethnic minorities being no more than a "Token Black" on TV (as South Park literally named that character) if there was even a Token on the show, to interracial entertainment being completely normal.

    In my parents or grandparents lifetime we've evolved further still.

    So why should it be remotely shocking that we have evolved even further from Ancient times? Or Medieval times?

    That's kind of the whole point. There's no single text, no one book, no one belief system that sums up who we are and how we got here. We are more than the sum of our parts. We are thousands of years of societal evolution which has been built upon concepts that existed from ancient times and have evolved since and adapted since.
    We improve, and we devolve too occasionally, but in certain areas within our lifetime the pace of positive change has been remarkable.

    The stat that always get me is just how few ethnic minority MPs there were at the turn of the millenium. The contrast with now is stunning.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    'NADINE DORRIES: The sinister forces that stopped me, a girl, born into poverty in Liverpool, from reaching the House of Lords'
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12187013/NADINE-DORRIES-sinister-forces-stopped-girl-reaching-House-Lords.html

    You'd know better than me - does this sort of thing work on the base?

    I mean, her instant resignation out of pique and this sort of thing makes it super clear that any issues she has with Sunak (or the 'sinister forces') extend no further than when it inconvenienced her being given a nice prize she was promised.

    It's not exactly stirring up my proletarian rage at the establishment that her hero was unable to secure her the peerage he obviously told her was a sure thing.
    '...Last Thursday, while taking the dog for a walk as the heat of the sun faded on London's pavements, I got a call from a leading political journalist whom I respected and liked. His words chilled me. 'Nadine, I've seen the [honours] list that's being published tomorrow and your name has been removed. Did you know this?' I was stunned. I didn't believe him.

    I rang Boris who was in Egypt and about to give a speech. 'B******s,' he bellowed down the line. 'It's someone in No 10 who is just making mischief. Sunak told me himself that you were on it just days ago and he wouldn't lie to me. It's a wind up.'

  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    Farooq said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    ^ this.

    If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

    It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

    If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
    I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

    We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of

  • kamskikamski Posts: 5,208

    .

    Sean_F said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    Yea but you believe in Brexit which is a far far more ludicrous and illogical religion than any of HY's beliefs. I mean, you believed in Boris Johnson!! lol.

    The reality is Barty, you remind me of people of undeveloped intellect who think it makes them look very big and witty to compare religion with Father Christmas and fairies (in fact I recall you making such a juvenile and uninformed suggestion), when in fact most of your political beliefs are so all over the place that I think you would believe anything that was told to you by someone that you like/hero worshipped , particularly if it aligned with your personal gripes and prejudices, or perhaps they painted it on the side of a bus. The Judeo-Christian tradition has given us most of our civilisation and ability to reason critically, but it has clearly left little mark on you. Your critique of religion is generally misinformed at best and basically moronic at worst. I'd stay off the subject if I were as misinformed as you. Stick to something you can relate to like planning policy. It requires less thought.
    I would not ever compare religion to Father Christmas. The latter is real.

    I am Father Christmas for my kids, as my parents were before me and for me. Millions of people spend every December creating the magic of Christmas and ensuring that Father Christmas is real for their children.

    That's totally different to grown ups believing that sky fairies have decreed an absolute set of rules which should be enforced exactly as their prejudices happen to align or else you're a sinner.

    Our civilisation owes far more to the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans than it does Judeo-Christianism which jumped on the bandwagon of pre-existing civilisation.
    The ancient world, pre conversion to Christianity, is fascinating, but a place whose notions of right and wrong, and proper conduct, would be utterly alien and shocking to modern Western people. Much more alien than medieval Europe would be.
    This might be surprising to you, but there's this concept I believe in called 'evolution'.

    Our society has evolved from ancient times to today. Our society has evolved within my own lifetime. In my own lifetime we've evolved from gays being ostracised and unable to get married to completely accepted. We've evolved from ethnic minorities being no more than a "Token Black" on TV (as South Park literally named that character) if there was even a Token on the show, to interracial entertainment being completely normal.

    In my parents or grandparents lifetime we've evolved further still.

    So why should it be remotely shocking that we have evolved even further from Ancient times? Or Medieval times?

    That's kind of the whole point. There's no single text, no one book, no one belief system that sums up who we are and how we got here. We are more than the sum of our parts. We are thousands of years of societal evolution which has been built upon concepts that existed from ancient times and have evolved since and adapted since.
    Also the idea that "the Judeo Christian tradition has given us our ability to reason critically" is breathtakingly ignorant and arrogant. Obviously loads of people before or entirely outside the so-called Judeo-Christian tradition have managed to reason critically.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    'NADINE DORRIES: The sinister forces that stopped me, a girl, born into poverty in Liverpool, from reaching the House of Lords'
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12187013/NADINE-DORRIES-sinister-forces-stopped-girl-reaching-House-Lords.html

    You'd know better than me - does this sort of thing work on the base?

    I mean, her instant resignation out of pique and this sort of thing makes it super clear that any issues she has with Sunak (or the 'sinister forces') extend no further than when it inconvenienced her being given a nice prize she was promised.

    It's not exactly stirring up my proletarian rage at the establishment that her hero was unable to secure her the peerage he obviously told her was a sure thing.
    '...Last Thursday, while taking the dog for a walk as the heat of the sun faded on London's pavements, I got a call from a leading political journalist whom I respected and liked. His words chilled me. 'Nadine, I've seen the [honours] list that's being published tomorrow and your name has been removed. Did you know this?' I was stunned. I didn't believe him.

    I rang Boris who was in Egypt and about to give a speech. 'B******s,' he bellowed down the line. 'It's someone in No 10 who is just making mischief. Sunak told me himself that you were on it just days ago and he wouldn't lie to me. It's a wind up.'

    So...yes?

    It still just seems like a big old 'wah, I didn't get that thing I don't really deserve*'

    *such as anyone deserves such a thing - Dorries was a Cabinet Minister for just under 1 year and a MP for less than 20. There have been far less distinguished peers, definitely, but she's not exactly a major figure either.
  • Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    ^ this.

    If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

    It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

    If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
    I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

    We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of

    A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.

    I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.

    He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.

    Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    kamski said:

    .

    Sean_F said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    Yea but you believe in Brexit which is a far far more ludicrous and illogical religion than any of HY's beliefs. I mean, you believed in Boris Johnson!! lol.

    The reality is Barty, you remind me of people of undeveloped intellect who think it makes them look very big and witty to compare religion with Father Christmas and fairies (in fact I recall you making such a juvenile and uninformed suggestion), when in fact most of your political beliefs are so all over the place that I think you would believe anything that was told to you by someone that you like/hero worshipped , particularly if it aligned with your personal gripes and prejudices, or perhaps they painted it on the side of a bus. The Judeo-Christian tradition has given us most of our civilisation and ability to reason critically, but it has clearly left little mark on you. Your critique of religion is generally misinformed at best and basically moronic at worst. I'd stay off the subject if I were as misinformed as you. Stick to something you can relate to like planning policy. It requires less thought.
    I would not ever compare religion to Father Christmas. The latter is real.

    I am Father Christmas for my kids, as my parents were before me and for me. Millions of people spend every December creating the magic of Christmas and ensuring that Father Christmas is real for their children.

    That's totally different to grown ups believing that sky fairies have decreed an absolute set of rules which should be enforced exactly as their prejudices happen to align or else you're a sinner.

    Our civilisation owes far more to the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans than it does Judeo-Christianism which jumped on the bandwagon of pre-existing civilisation.
    The ancient world, pre conversion to Christianity, is fascinating, but a place whose notions of right and wrong, and proper conduct, would be utterly alien and shocking to modern Western people. Much more alien than medieval Europe would be.
    This might be surprising to you, but there's this concept I believe in called 'evolution'.

    Our society has evolved from ancient times to today. Our society has evolved within my own lifetime. In my own lifetime we've evolved from gays being ostracised and unable to get married to completely accepted. We've evolved from ethnic minorities being no more than a "Token Black" on TV (as South Park literally named that character) if there was even a Token on the show, to interracial entertainment being completely normal.

    In my parents or grandparents lifetime we've evolved further still.

    So why should it be remotely shocking that we have evolved even further from Ancient times? Or Medieval times?

    That's kind of the whole point. There's no single text, no one book, no one belief system that sums up who we are and how we got here. We are more than the sum of our parts. We are thousands of years of societal evolution which has been built upon concepts that existed from ancient times and have evolved since and adapted since.
    Also the idea that "the Judeo Christian tradition has given us our ability to reason critically" is breathtakingly ignorant and arrogant. Obviously loads of people before or entirely outside the so-called Judeo-Christian tradition have managed to reason critically.
    Don't read Dominion by Tom Holland then, it's basically how everything is down to Christianity, even the things that don't seem like it.

    (I don't in any way deny the huge influence of Christianity on development of our culture, and thus even my own concepts and beliefs despite being an athiest, but the impression I got from the book was he rather overplays the idea)
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    I am in possession of four photos which are so shocking they would make anyone question their belief in a benevolent deity. No joke. They are the most harrowing images I have ever seen. Far too disturbing to share

    Luckily, i don’t believe in a benevolent deity, I believe the Creator is necessarily outwith our comprehension, as is the purpose of the universe, all we can do is intuit this purpose, and this Creation, if we are fortunate. Put it differently: we see through a glass darkly, and sometimes, with that impaired vision, God definitely comes across as a bit of a c*nt. Sad but true
  • kamski said:

    .

    Sean_F said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    Yea but you believe in Brexit which is a far far more ludicrous and illogical religion than any of HY's beliefs. I mean, you believed in Boris Johnson!! lol.

    The reality is Barty, you remind me of people of undeveloped intellect who think it makes them look very big and witty to compare religion with Father Christmas and fairies (in fact I recall you making such a juvenile and uninformed suggestion), when in fact most of your political beliefs are so all over the place that I think you would believe anything that was told to you by someone that you like/hero worshipped , particularly if it aligned with your personal gripes and prejudices, or perhaps they painted it on the side of a bus. The Judeo-Christian tradition has given us most of our civilisation and ability to reason critically, but it has clearly left little mark on you. Your critique of religion is generally misinformed at best and basically moronic at worst. I'd stay off the subject if I were as misinformed as you. Stick to something you can relate to like planning policy. It requires less thought.
    I would not ever compare religion to Father Christmas. The latter is real.

    I am Father Christmas for my kids, as my parents were before me and for me. Millions of people spend every December creating the magic of Christmas and ensuring that Father Christmas is real for their children.

    That's totally different to grown ups believing that sky fairies have decreed an absolute set of rules which should be enforced exactly as their prejudices happen to align or else you're a sinner.

    Our civilisation owes far more to the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans than it does Judeo-Christianism which jumped on the bandwagon of pre-existing civilisation.
    The ancient world, pre conversion to Christianity, is fascinating, but a place whose notions of right and wrong, and proper conduct, would be utterly alien and shocking to modern Western people. Much more alien than medieval Europe would be.
    This might be surprising to you, but there's this concept I believe in called 'evolution'.

    Our society has evolved from ancient times to today. Our society has evolved within my own lifetime. In my own lifetime we've evolved from gays being ostracised and unable to get married to completely accepted. We've evolved from ethnic minorities being no more than a "Token Black" on TV (as South Park literally named that character) if there was even a Token on the show, to interracial entertainment being completely normal.

    In my parents or grandparents lifetime we've evolved further still.

    So why should it be remotely shocking that we have evolved even further from Ancient times? Or Medieval times?

    That's kind of the whole point. There's no single text, no one book, no one belief system that sums up who we are and how we got here. We are more than the sum of our parts. We are thousands of years of societal evolution which has been built upon concepts that existed from ancient times and have evolved since and adapted since.
    Also the idea that "the Judeo Christian tradition has given us our ability to reason critically" is breathtakingly ignorant and arrogant. Obviously loads of people before or entirely outside the so-called Judeo-Christian tradition have managed to reason critically.
    Plato notoriously couldn't reason critically.

    She was too obsessed with cat videos.

    RIP, apologies if that's inappropriate.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546

    .

    Sean_F said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    Yea but you believe in Brexit which is a far far more ludicrous and illogical religion than any of HY's beliefs. I mean, you believed in Boris Johnson!! lol.

    The reality is Barty, you remind me of people of undeveloped intellect who think it makes them look very big and witty to compare religion with Father Christmas and fairies (in fact I recall you making such a juvenile and uninformed suggestion), when in fact most of your political beliefs are so all over the place that I think you would believe anything that was told to you by someone that you like/hero worshipped , particularly if it aligned with your personal gripes and prejudices, or perhaps they painted it on the side of a bus. The Judeo-Christian tradition has given us most of our civilisation and ability to reason critically, but it has clearly left little mark on you. Your critique of religion is generally misinformed at best and basically moronic at worst. I'd stay off the subject if I were as misinformed as you. Stick to something you can relate to like planning policy. It requires less thought.
    I would not ever compare religion to Father Christmas. The latter is real.

    I am Father Christmas for my kids, as my parents were before me and for me. Millions of people spend every December creating the magic of Christmas and ensuring that Father Christmas is real for their children.

    That's totally different to grown ups believing that sky fairies have decreed an absolute set of rules which should be enforced exactly as their prejudices happen to align or else you're a sinner.

    Our civilisation owes far more to the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans than it does Judeo-Christianism which jumped on the bandwagon of pre-existing civilisation.
    The ancient world, pre conversion to Christianity, is fascinating, but a place whose notions of right and wrong, and proper conduct, would be utterly alien and shocking to modern Western people. Much more alien than medieval Europe would be.
    This might be surprising to you, but there's this concept I believe in called 'evolution'.

    Our society has evolved from ancient times to today. Our society has evolved within my own lifetime. In my own lifetime we've evolved from gays being ostracised and unable to get married to completely accepted. We've evolved from ethnic minorities being no more than a "Token Black" on TV (as South Park literally named that character) if there was even a Token on the show, to interracial entertainment being completely normal.

    In my parents or grandparents lifetime we've evolved further still.

    So why should it be remotely shocking that we have evolved even further from Ancient times? Or Medieval times?

    That's kind of the whole point. There's no single text, no one book, no one belief system that sums up who we are and how we got here. We are more than the sum of our parts. We are thousands of years of societal evolution which has been built upon concepts that existed from ancient times and have evolved since and adapted since.
    My own view is that (in the very long term) the world evolves for the better; but that in the medium term, it shifts back and forth, in different societies. Periods of comparative enlightenment may degenerate into periods of shocking barbarism.

    It would be very easy to envisage a Western world where, 50 years from now, much of what we take for granted, in terms of freedom of expression, has been completely snuffed out. Cancel culture (whether of the Woke variety, or the De Santis variety) may become totalitarian. And those who would snuff out free expression would claim to ridding the world of hate, or degeneracy,

    I think that a lot of what came out of Judaism and
    Christianity is so trite and seemingly obvious today, that it’s easy to forget how radical and absurd it seemed at a time when kings and generals bragged about genocide, mass impalements, and feeding defeated rivals to wild
    beasts.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    ^ this.

    If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

    It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

    If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
    I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

    We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of

    A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.

    I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.

    He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.

    Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.
    OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam

    PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different
  • kamskikamski Posts: 5,208
    Leon said:

    I am in possession of four photos which are so shocking they would make anyone question their belief in a benevolent deity. No joke. They are the most harrowing images I have ever seen. Far too disturbing to share

    Luckily, i don’t believe in a benevolent deity, I believe the Creator is necessarily outwith our comprehension, as is the purpose of the universe, all we can do is intuit this purpose, and this Creation, if we are fortunate. Put it differently: we see through a glass darkly, and sometimes, with that impaired vision, God definitely comes across as a bit of a c*nt. Sad but true

    Maybe it's just semantics, but why do you talk of both a Creator and a Creation - seems be at least a bit of an unwarranted assumption. And isn't existence enough of a mystery unto itself?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,914

    What is “total Brexit” supposed to mean?

    Sounds a bit eschatological to me, and presumably culminates in some mass kool-aid drinking ceremony somewhere in the South American jungle.

    In 2023 when something is utter rubbish we say "that is total bollocks". Future generations will refer to utter rubbish not as "total bollocks" but as "total Brexit".
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    Nigelb said:

    What a wanker.

    Chuck Grassley tells me he hasn’t read the indictment because he’s “not a legal analyst” (he previously chaired the judiciary committee)
    https://twitter.com/JoePerticone/status/1668358730985897987

    I truly struggle with how little shame many politicians have. I mean, it'd be more dignified to just say he doesn't care what may or may not be in it so f*ck you, why act like he's too stupid to read an indictment (I can't see another interpretation, since if only legal analysts should read legal documents why should anyone else, eg him, comment on things at all)? Why is that a better option?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    ^ this.

    If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

    It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

    If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
    I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

    We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of

    If you suspect I approve of people being barred from criticising religion, any religion, you'd be wrong. You single out Islam for sound reasons; a lot of recent problem around religion in this country have been because of Islam. The fault is with those who believe that non-adherents should shut up about it, and especially with those who believe that they should take matters into their own hands to enforce that "rule". I don't think it's necessary to single out one belief system, though, because any are susceptible to indulging in it. Especially if they see one succeed via extreme means.

    We shouldn't have blasphemy rules, de jure or de facto. It's wrong to silence people. Is that clear enough?
    Fair enough. Why do you think this de facto blasphemy law, protecting Islam, has arisen?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    ^ this.

    If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

    It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

    If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
    I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

    We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of

    If you suspect I approve of people being barred from criticising religion, any religion, you'd be wrong. You single out Islam for sound reasons; a lot of recent problem around religion in this country have been because of Islam. The fault is with those who believe that non-adherents should shut up about it, and especially with those who believe that they should take matters into their own hands to enforce that "rule". I don't think it's necessary to single out one belief system, though, because any are susceptible to indulging in it. Especially if they see one succeed via extreme means.

    We shouldn't have blasphemy rules, de jure or de facto. It's wrong to silence people. Is that clear enough?
    Fair enough. Why do you think this de facto blasphemy law, protecting Islam, has arisen?
    Violent threats work, and cultural cowardice.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    ^ this.

    If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

    It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

    If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
    I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

    We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of

    A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.

    I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.

    He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.

    Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.
    OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam

    PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different
    I won't do any of that because I wouldn't do any of that for any religion.

    I don't debate politics or religion in my own name. I don't debate politics or religion on my social media accounts. And I don't burn books - anywhere.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    ^ this.

    If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

    It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

    If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
    I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

    We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of

    A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.

    I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.

    He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.

    Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.
    OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam

    PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different
    I won't do any of that because I wouldn't do any of that for any religion.

    I don't debate politics or religion in my own name. I don't debate politics or religion on my social media accounts. And I don't burn books - anywhere.
    But you just said you are - as you should be - free to criticise and ridicule religion. I’ve shown you that this is not the case

    You avoid the thorny truth by then simply saying you never debate politics or religion in your own name, so the issue does not arise

    This is like debating with a 13 year old
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,690
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    ^ this.

    If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

    It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

    If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
    I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

    We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of

    A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.

    I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.

    He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.

    Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.
    OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam

    PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different
    Not for all of us. And I am still happy to say that Islam is a belief in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies - just like Christianity.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    This whole think looks most like Dorries is learning what everyone else who has interacted with him has learned at some point - Don't trust Boris Johnson if he says "I've got this, don't worry"

    https://twitter.com/aljwhite/status/1667603447640719364/photo/2

    She's not angry at him, yet, but ultimately it seems like she relied on his assurances and he was either lying or wrong.
  • Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    ^ this.

    If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

    It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

    If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
    I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

    We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of

    If you suspect I approve of people being barred from criticising religion, any religion, you'd be wrong. You single out Islam for sound reasons; a lot of recent problem around religion in this country have been because of Islam. The fault is with those who believe that non-adherents should shut up about it, and especially with those who believe that they should take matters into their own hands to enforce that "rule". I don't think it's necessary to single out one belief system, though, because any are susceptible to indulging in it. Especially if they see one succeed via extreme means.

    We shouldn't have blasphemy rules, de jure or de facto. It's wrong to silence people. Is that clear enough?
    Fair enough. Why do you think this de facto blasphemy law, protecting Islam, has arisen?
    "Its impossible to criticise Islam" says person who has criticised Islam thousands of times and linked to hundreds of criticisms of Islam.

    Free speech still exists in this country. If you're a dickhead though going around being obnoxiously rude to unsolicited strangers or setting fires in buildings then blasphemy isn't the issue.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    ^ this.

    If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

    It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

    If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
    I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

    We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of

    A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.

    I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.

    He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.

    Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.
    OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam

    PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different
    Not for all of us. And I am still happy to say that Islam is a belief in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies - just like Christianity.
    Would you post a satirical cartoon of the Prophet on your personal social media in your name?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,914
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    'NADINE DORRIES: The sinister forces that stopped me, a girl, born into poverty in Liverpool, from reaching the House of Lords'
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12187013/NADINE-DORRIES-sinister-forces-stopped-girl-reaching-House-Lords.html

    You'd know better than me - does this sort of thing work on the base?

    I mean, her instant resignation out of pique and this sort of thing makes it super clear that any issues she has with Sunak (or the 'sinister forces') extend no further than when it inconvenienced her being given a nice prize she was promised.

    It's not exactly stirring up my proletarian rage at the establishment that her hero was unable to secure her the peerage he obviously told her was a sure thing.
    '...Last Thursday, while taking the dog for a walk as the heat of the sun faded on London's pavements, I got a call from a leading political journalist whom I respected and liked. His words chilled me. 'Nadine, I've seen the [honours] list that's being published tomorrow and your name has been removed. Did you know this?' I was stunned. I didn't believe him.

    I rang Boris who was in Egypt and about to give a speech. 'B******s,' he bellowed down the line. 'It's someone in No 10 who is just making mischief. Sunak told me himself that you were on it just days ago and he wouldn't lie to me. It's a wind up.'

    So...yes?

    It still just seems like a big old 'wah, I didn't get that thing I don't really deserve*'

    *such as anyone deserves such a thing - Dorries was a Cabinet Minister for just under 1 year and a MP for less than 20. There have been far less distinguished peers, definitely, but she's not exactly a major figure either.
    I am not sure where Nads thinks this is going.

    The rest of us born in a ditch peasants had no desire to be first Conservative MPs and later Peers, so I doubt Nads will get the vote of outrage she is expecting after another Conservative MP has blocked her elevation to the Lords.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited June 2023

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    ^ this.

    If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

    It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

    If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
    I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

    We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of

    A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.

    I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.

    He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.

    Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.
    OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam

    PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different
    Not for all of us. And I am still happy to say that Islam is a belief in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies - just like Christianity.
    It doesn't believe in the Trinity though. Islam sees Jesus as a prophet (albeit a less important one than Muhammad) but it doesn't see him as God and Holy Spirit too as Christians do
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    ^ this.

    If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

    It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

    If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
    I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

    We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of

    A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.

    I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.

    He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.

    Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.
    OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam

    PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different
    I won't do any of that because I wouldn't do any of that for any religion.

    I don't debate politics or religion in my own name. I don't debate politics or religion on my social media accounts. And I don't burn books - anywhere.
    But you just said you are - as you should be - free to criticise and ridicule religion. I’ve shown you that this is not the case

    You avoid the thorny truth by then simply saying you never debate politics or religion in your own name, so the issue does not arise

    This is like debating with a 13 year old
    I absolutely am free to criticise and ridicule religion. Doesn't mean I'll be an arsonist in shops which is the bar you seem to have set.
  • CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    Nothing to do with religion but people do jump on HYUFD at times for seemingly no reason. He's a perfectly nice - if odd, like me - chap.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,149
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    ^ this.

    If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

    It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

    If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
    I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

    We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of

    A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.

    I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.

    He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.

    Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.
    OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam

    PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different
    I won't do any of that because I wouldn't do any of that for any religion.

    I don't debate politics or religion in my own name. I don't debate politics or religion on my social media accounts. And I don't burn books - anywhere.
    But you just said you are - as you should be - free to criticise and ridicule religion. I’ve shown you that this is not the case

    You avoid the thorny truth by then simply saying you never debate politics or religion in your own name, so the issue does not arise

    This is like debating with a 13 year old
    "It's like living with a 6 year old!"
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,690

    Nothing to do with religion but people do jump on HYUFD at times for seemingly no reason. He's a perfectly nice - if odd, like me - chap.

    He supported the Spanish police beating old ladies who were trying to vote and advocates sending in tanks to prevent the Scots voting for independence and using nukes against Argentina.

    I am all for diversity of opinions but some opinions reflect very badly on their adherents.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,477
    Not all religions are the same.
    Nor even similar.
  • CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761

    Nothing to do with religion but people do jump on HYUFD at times for seemingly no reason. He's a perfectly nice - if odd, like me - chap.

    He supported the Spanish police beating old ladies who were trying to vote and advocates sending in tanks to prevent the Scots voting for independence and using nukes against Argentina.

    I am all for diversity of opinions but some opinions reflect very badly on their adherents.
    You must hate me then Richard.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,690
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    ^ this.

    If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

    It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

    If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
    I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

    We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of

    A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.

    I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.

    He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.

    Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.
    OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam

    PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different
    Not for all of us. And I am still happy to say that Islam is a belief in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies - just like Christianity.
    It doesn't believe in the Trinity though. Islam sees Jesus as a prophet (albeit a less important one than Muhammad) but it doesn't see him as God and Holy Spirit too as Christians do
    Just different flavours of the same Middle Eastern Sky Fairies.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,690
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    ^ this.

    If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

    It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

    If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
    I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

    We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of

    A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.

    I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.

    He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.

    Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.
    OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam

    PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different
    Not for all of us. And I am still happy to say that Islam is a belief in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies - just like Christianity.
    Would you post a satirical cartoon of the Prophet on your personal social media in your name?
    You missed it but back at the time of Charlie Hebdo I did - along with thousands of others.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,690

    Nothing to do with religion but people do jump on HYUFD at times for seemingly no reason. He's a perfectly nice - if odd, like me - chap.

    He supported the Spanish police beating old ladies who were trying to vote and advocates sending in tanks to prevent the Scots voting for independence and using nukes against Argentina.

    I am all for diversity of opinions but some opinions reflect very badly on their adherents.
    You must hate me then Richard.
    No. I dislike and scorn some of your opinions, particularly with relation to the elderly. Again, they reflect badly on you, particularly given your past history.
  • CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761

    Nothing to do with religion but people do jump on HYUFD at times for seemingly no reason. He's a perfectly nice - if odd, like me - chap.

    He supported the Spanish police beating old ladies who were trying to vote and advocates sending in tanks to prevent the Scots voting for independence and using nukes against Argentina.

    I am all for diversity of opinions but some opinions reflect very badly on their adherents.
    You must hate me then Richard.
    No. I dislike and scorn some of your opinions, particularly with relation to the elderly. Again, they reflect badly on you, particularly given your past history.
    You called me an idiot so I can't believe you have much respect for me. I thought that well beneath you, we had always got on well before that but I thought it so unnecessary.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,959
    HYUFD said:

    'NADINE DORRIES: The sinister forces that stopped me, a girl, born into poverty in Liverpool, from reaching the House of Lords'
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12187013/NADINE-DORRIES-sinister-forces-stopped-girl-reaching-House-Lords.html

    Working-class people are discriminated against in this country.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,914
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    ^ this.

    If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

    It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

    If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
    I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

    We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of

    A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.

    I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.

    He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.

    Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.
    OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam

    PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different
    Not for all of us. And I am still happy to say that Islam is a belief in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies - just like Christianity.
    It doesn't believe in the Trinity though, Islam sees Jesus as a prophet (albeit a less important one than Muhammad) but it doesn't see him as God and Holy Spirit too as Christians do
    I believe anyone should be allowed to indulge themselves in their own faith, whatever that may be.

    Where you and I differ is my view that such divinity is best served in solitude. Organized religion on the other hand is the root of much of the World's woes. It is not your Gods or your prophets who are to blame, it is avarice of men who build their churches, idols and finery with money they demand with menaces from the poor. From the Church of Rome to the Church of Scientology, Charlatans become wealthy and then politically connected to enhance that wealth.

    So when you pray in solitude, ask your God if he is angered that the CoE owns so much real estate here in the UK, and why don't the C of E liquidate these assets to clothe, feed and educate the needy?

    Substitute C of E for just about any faith based organised church throughout the World if you like.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,690

    Nothing to do with religion but people do jump on HYUFD at times for seemingly no reason. He's a perfectly nice - if odd, like me - chap.

    He supported the Spanish police beating old ladies who were trying to vote and advocates sending in tanks to prevent the Scots voting for independence and using nukes against Argentina.

    I am all for diversity of opinions but some opinions reflect very badly on their adherents.
    You must hate me then Richard.
    No. I dislike and scorn some of your opinions, particularly with relation to the elderly. Again, they reflect badly on you, particularly given your past history.
    You called me an idiot so I can't believe you have much respect for me. I thought that well beneath you, we had always got on well before that but I thought it so unnecessary.
    Respect is earned - and lost.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,903
    HYUFD said:

    'NADINE DORRIES: The sinister forces that stopped me, a girl, born into poverty in Liverpool, from reaching the House of Lords'
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12187013/NADINE-DORRIES-sinister-forces-stopped-girl-reaching-House-Lords.html

    She has a point. She is certainly treated worse, both by her opponents and those on her own side, because she is a working class woman. Angela Rayner similarly. There is a lot of classism in British political and media circles.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,149
    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    'NADINE DORRIES: The sinister forces that stopped me, a girl, born into poverty in Liverpool, from reaching the House of Lords'
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12187013/NADINE-DORRIES-sinister-forces-stopped-girl-reaching-House-Lords.html

    Working-class people are discriminated against in this country.
    "God Save The King", you see. Not us plebs.
  • CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761

    Nothing to do with religion but people do jump on HYUFD at times for seemingly no reason. He's a perfectly nice - if odd, like me - chap.

    He supported the Spanish police beating old ladies who were trying to vote and advocates sending in tanks to prevent the Scots voting for independence and using nukes against Argentina.

    I am all for diversity of opinions but some opinions reflect very badly on their adherents.
    You must hate me then Richard.
    No. I dislike and scorn some of your opinions, particularly with relation to the elderly. Again, they reflect badly on you, particularly given your past history.
    You called me an idiot so I can't believe you have much respect for me. I thought that well beneath you, we had always got on well before that but I thought it so unnecessary.
    Respect is earned - and lost.
    So you don't like me or respect me then, that's a real shame but don't pretend otherwise. I would appreciate you be honest.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,914
    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    'NADINE DORRIES: The sinister forces that stopped me, a girl, born into poverty in Liverpool, from reaching the House of Lords'
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12187013/NADINE-DORRIES-sinister-forces-stopped-girl-reaching-House-Lords.html

    Working-class people are discriminated against in this country.
    Not if they stick together and hang around with fellow working class geezers like Alexander Johnson and Jacob Rees Mogg. Safety in numbers, power to the people!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    OK no one told me that Alexandria is absolutely SOAKED in slavery. I feel like I’m hunting for really good lobster rolls in and around Treblinka
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,149
    Farooq said:

    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    'NADINE DORRIES: The sinister forces that stopped me, a girl, born into poverty in Liverpool, from reaching the House of Lords'
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12187013/NADINE-DORRIES-sinister-forces-stopped-girl-reaching-House-Lords.html

    Working-class people are discriminated against in this country.
    Mibbe aye, but Nadine Dorries is a dick, and I think that's a much more relevant, likely, proximate, and legitimate reason to scratch her name off any list of people to be rewarded. Her dickish reaction helps to justify Sunak's choice.

    Interestingly, she believed that she became an MP because it was God's will. Perhaps even God though the Lord's would be taking the piss a bit. She wants to be careful she doesn't get a smiting by railing against His divine will. God's, that it. Not Sunak's.
    "Nadine strayed from the Path, and The Lord Rishi smote her good!"
  • RattersRatters Posts: 1,111
    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    ^ this.

    If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

    It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

    If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
    I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

    We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of
    I agree that the fear of the reaction of one insults Islam as a religion means fewer people do it. That is a bad thing for society and for Islam:
    - voluntary censorship out of fear is a bad thing
    - any idea or belief that thinks it is beyond mockery is not shows itself to be fragile, and will not gain wider acceptance

    Now the trouble is that this is a global problem. Muslims I know in the UK can take a joke. Hopefully this becomes the norm globally in time, as it has with Christianity.

    Because, ultimately, all religions - not limited to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Scientology - are batshit insane in their beliefs. And so deserve their fair share of mockery.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606

    HYUFD said:

    'NADINE DORRIES: The sinister forces that stopped me, a girl, born into poverty in Liverpool, from reaching the House of Lords'
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12187013/NADINE-DORRIES-sinister-forces-stopped-girl-reaching-House-Lords.html

    She has a point. She is certainly treated worse, both by her opponents and those on her own side, because she is a working class woman. Angela Rayner similarly. There is a lot of classism in British political and media circles.
    Yes I agree. And yes, ditto Rayner
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,149
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    'NADINE DORRIES: The sinister forces that stopped me, a girl, born into poverty in Liverpool, from reaching the House of Lords'
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12187013/NADINE-DORRIES-sinister-forces-stopped-girl-reaching-House-Lords.html

    She has a point. She is certainly treated worse, both by her opponents and those on her own side, because she is a working class woman. Angela Rayner similarly. There is a lot of classism in British political and media circles.
    Yes I agree. And yes, ditto Rayner
    There's this black lady I saw recently in an advert (I presume she must be a minor celeb) who sounds EXACTLY like Angela Rayner.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591

    HYUFD said:

    'NADINE DORRIES: The sinister forces that stopped me, a girl, born into poverty in Liverpool, from reaching the House of Lords'
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12187013/NADINE-DORRIES-sinister-forces-stopped-girl-reaching-House-Lords.html

    She has a point. She is certainly treated worse, both by her opponents and those on her own side, because she is a working class woman. Angela Rayner similarly. There is a lot of classism in British political and media circles.
    As ever with people making a point, they can easily take it way too far. Dorries does seem to always have provoked claims she is egregiously bad, when she seems pretty normally bad, and so an explanation as to why that is is not unreasonable. But she is clearly very upset about not getting a prize she wanted, and tying that into something grander than some simpler explanations, such as Boris didn't know what he was talking about, she was careless, and Rishi felt no obligation to go to bat for her further.

    Perhaps she should have been more temperate towards him rather than rely on the great Boris to see her through. What goes around comes around.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,866
    Cyclefree said:

    https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/R-v.-Foster-sentencing-remarks-12.6.23.pdf

    The sentencing remarks in the abortion case. Not quite how it was presented earlier. Deception and lying are not viewed favourably by the courts. The sentence does seem a tad harsh.

    From 9, "Indeed I consider it would have been better had the letter not been written at all" is rather pointed. Is the letter available ?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,149
    Ratters said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    ^ this.

    If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

    It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

    If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
    I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

    We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of
    I agree that the fear of the reaction of one insults Islam as a religion means fewer people do it. That is a bad thing for society and for Islam:
    - voluntary censorship out of fear is a bad thing
    - any idea or belief that thinks it is beyond mockery is not shows itself to be fragile, and will not gain wider acceptance

    Now the trouble is that this is a global problem. Muslims I know in the UK can take a joke. Hopefully this becomes the norm globally in time, as it has with Christianity.

    Because, ultimately, all religions - not limited to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Scientology - are batshit insane in their beliefs. And so deserve their fair share of mockery.
    I don't want to start any blasphemous rumours
    But I think that God's got a sick sense of humour
    And when I die
    I expect to find him laughing
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited June 2023

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    ^ this.

    If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

    It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

    If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
    I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

    We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of

    A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.

    I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.

    He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.

    Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.
    OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam

    PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different
    Not for all of us. And I am still happy to say that Islam is a belief in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies - just like Christianity.
    It doesn't believe in the Trinity though, Islam sees Jesus as a prophet (albeit a less important one than Muhammad) but it doesn't see him as God and Holy Spirit too as Christians do
    I believe anyone should be allowed to indulge themselves in their own faith, whatever that may be.

    Where you and I differ is my view that such divinity is best served in solitude. Organized religion on the other hand is the root of much of the World's woes. It is not your Gods or your prophets who are to blame, it is avarice of men who build their churches, idols and finery with money they demand with menaces from the poor. From the Church of Rome to the Church of Scientology, Charlatans become wealthy and then politically connected to enhance that wealth.

    So when you pray in solitude, ask your God if he is angered that the CoE owns so much real estate here in the UK, and why don't the C of E liquidate these assets to clothe, feed and educate the needy?

    Substitute C of E for just about any faith based organised church throughout the World if you like.
    As the C of E is not a socialist organisation but a Christian organisation focused on worship of the living Christ. Yes it also provides foodbanks, schools and homeless shelters too but its ultimate purpose is to provide places of worship for fellow Anglicans to partake of Holy Communion, read the Bible and worship
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987

    Nothing to do with religion but people do jump on HYUFD at times for seemingly no reason. He's a perfectly nice - if odd, like me - chap.

    He supported the Spanish police beating old ladies who were trying to vote and advocates sending in tanks to prevent the Scots voting for independence and using nukes against Argentina.

    I am all for diversity of opinions but some opinions reflect very badly on their adherents.
    You must hate me then Richard.
    No. I dislike and scorn some of your opinions, particularly with relation to the elderly. Again, they reflect badly on you, particularly given your past history.
    You called me an idiot so I can't believe you have much respect for me. I thought that well beneath you, we had always got on well before that but I thought it so unnecessary.
    Respect is earned - and lost.
    So you don't like me or respect me then, that's a real shame but don't pretend otherwise. I would appreciate you be honest.
    This is a blog of strangers.

    I wouldn't concern yourself with what anyone else thinks of you or anyone else for that matter. HY is forthright and thick skinned. I suspect he gives not two hoots what anyone thinks of him or his opinions. You should do likewise. For what it's worth from what I have read on here (and we all have our axes to grind and crosses to bear) I would share a couple of beers or three with both you and HY. There are others on here I doubt I would want to, and the thought would be mutual.

    But like I said, we are all just strangers on the internet.
    Thanks and I would equally share a drink with you and Horse at some point, whatever our political differences
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,149
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    ^ this.

    If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

    It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

    If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
    I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

    We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of

    A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.

    I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.

    He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.

    Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.
    OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam

    PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different
    Not for all of us. And I am still happy to say that Islam is a belief in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies - just like Christianity.
    It doesn't believe in the Trinity though, Islam sees Jesus as a prophet (albeit a less important one than Muhammad) but it doesn't see him as God and Holy Spirit too as Christians do
    I believe anyone should be allowed to indulge themselves in their own faith, whatever that may be.

    Where you and I differ is my view that such divinity is best served in solitude. Organized religion on the other hand is the root of much of the World's woes. It is not your Gods or your prophets who are to blame, it is avarice of men who build their churches, idols and finery with money they demand with menaces from the poor. From the Church of Rome to the Church of Scientology, Charlatans become wealthy and then politically connected to enhance that wealth.

    So when you pray in solitude, ask your God if he is angered that the CoE owns so much real estate here in the UK, and why don't the C of E liquidate these assets to clothe, feed and educate the needy?

    Substitute C of E for just about any faith based organised church throughout the World if you like.
    As the C of E is not a socialist organisation but a Christian organisation focused on worship of the living Christ. Yes it also provides foodbanks, schools and homeless shelters too but its ultimate purpose is to provide places of worship for fellow Anglicans to partake of Holy Communion, read the Bible and worship
    Jesus was a socialist.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited June 2023

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    ^ this.

    If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

    It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

    If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
    I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

    We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of

    A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.

    I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.

    He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.

    Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.
    OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam

    PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different
    Not for all of us. And I am still happy to say that Islam is a belief in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies - just like Christianity.
    It doesn't believe in the Trinity though, Islam sees Jesus as a prophet (albeit a less important one than Muhammad) but it doesn't see him as God and Holy Spirit too as Christians do
    I believe anyone should be allowed to indulge themselves in their own faith, whatever that may be.

    Where you and I differ is my view that such divinity is best served in solitude. Organized religion on the other hand is the root of much of the World's woes. It is not your Gods or your prophets who are to blame, it is avarice of men who build their churches, idols and finery with money they demand with menaces from the poor. From the Church of Rome to the Church of Scientology, Charlatans become wealthy and then politically connected to enhance that wealth.

    So when you pray in solitude, ask your God if he is angered that the CoE owns so much real estate here in the UK, and why don't the C of E liquidate these assets to clothe, feed and educate the needy?

    Substitute C of E for just about any faith based organised church throughout the World if you like.
    As the C of E is not a socialist organisation but a Christian organisation focused on worship of the living Christ. Yes it also provides foodbanks, schools and homeless shelters too but its ultimate purpose is to provide places of worship for fellow Anglicans to partake of Holy Communion, read the Bible and worship
    Jesus was a socialist.
    He wasn't, read the parable of the talents. He was also a social conservative, albeit with compassion for the sinner provided they recognised their sin
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,914

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    'NADINE DORRIES: The sinister forces that stopped me, a girl, born into poverty in Liverpool, from reaching the House of Lords'
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12187013/NADINE-DORRIES-sinister-forces-stopped-girl-reaching-House-Lords.html

    She has a point. She is certainly treated worse, both by her opponents and those on her own side, because she is a working class woman. Angela Rayner similarly. There is a lot of classism in British political and media circles.
    Yes I agree. And yes, ditto Rayner
    There's this black lady I saw recently in an advert (I presume she must be a minor celeb) who sounds EXACTLY like Angela Rayner.
    A J Odudu?

    She's also a politics graduate from Keele University.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,959
    dixiedean said:

    Not all religions are the same.
    Nor even similar.

    Lutheranism seems to have delivered the best outcomes.
  • carnforth said:

    Cyclefree said:

    https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/R-v.-Foster-sentencing-remarks-12.6.23.pdf

    The sentencing remarks in the abortion case. Not quite how it was presented earlier. Deception and lying are not viewed favourably by the courts. The sentence does seem a tad harsh.

    From 9, "Indeed I consider it would have been better had the letter not been written at all" is rather pointed. Is the letter available ?
    IANAL but it seems a rather chilling and inappropriate comment to me.

    If the letter was not appropriate for the Judge to take into account, then the Judge should be more than qualified and capable of determining that my himself or herself. That is their role, it is not the role of the Royal College of Obstetricians etc to determine whether what they have to say is relevant or not.

    I fail to see any circumstances where it would be "better" for those with a relevant interest or expertise to not express that interest or expertise.

    To respond to those who've said something with "it would have been better if you'd just stayed quiet" seems to me to be entirely inappropriate.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    Alexandria, Virginia, in the 1850s. These photos still shock


  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,866
    Leon said:

    Alexandria, Virginia, in the 1850s. These photos still shock


    Wow. More info: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_and_Armfield_Office
  • Cyclefree said:

    https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/R-v.-Foster-sentencing-remarks-12.6.23.pdf

    The sentencing remarks in the abortion case. Not quite how it was presented earlier. Deception and lying are not viewed favourably by the courts. The sentence does seem a tad harsh.

    Can you please explain this, as I'm finding it hard to understand.

    image

    It seems to me that the timeline is that she was initially charged with a different offence to which she pled not guilty, her lawyers asked if the prosecutors had considered a different charge and then an agreement was reached to plead guilty to that other charge.

    But then the Judge says he can't suspend the sentence because she didn't plead guilty initially.

    That doesn't make any sense to me. She wasn't found guilty of the offence she was charged with initially, she pled guilty to a different charge which wasn't listed initially, so how or why should she have pled guilty to that when it wasn't even the charge originally before the courts?

    The fact she pled not guilty to a charge she was never convicted of surely should not be held against her?
  • TimSTimS Posts: 13,215
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    ^ this.

    If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

    It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

    If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
    I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

    We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of

    A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.

    I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.

    He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.

    Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.
    OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam

    PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different
    Not for all of us. And I am still happy to say that Islam is a belief in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies - just like Christianity.
    It doesn't believe in the Trinity though, Islam sees Jesus as a prophet (albeit a less important one than Muhammad) but it doesn't see him as God and Holy Spirit too as Christians do
    I believe anyone should be allowed to indulge themselves in their own faith, whatever that may be.

    Where you and I differ is my view that such divinity is best served in solitude. Organized religion on the other hand is the root of much of the World's woes. It is not your Gods or your prophets who are to blame, it is avarice of men who build their churches, idols and finery with money they demand with menaces from the poor. From the Church of Rome to the Church of Scientology, Charlatans become wealthy and then politically connected to enhance that wealth.

    So when you pray in solitude, ask your God if he is angered that the CoE owns so much real estate here in the UK, and why don't the C of E liquidate these assets to clothe, feed and educate the needy?

    Substitute C of E for just about any faith based organised church throughout the World if you like.
    As the C of E is not a socialist organisation but a Christian organisation focused on worship of the living Christ. Yes it also provides foodbanks, schools and homeless shelters too but its ultimate purpose is to provide places of worship for fellow Anglicans to partake of Holy Communion, read the Bible and worship
    Jesus was a socialist.
    He wasn't, read the parable of the talents. He was also a social conservative, albeit with compassion for the sinner provided they recognised their sin
    Jesus was an orange book Lib Dem.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 22,415
    edited June 2023
    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    ^ this.

    If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

    It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

    If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
    I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

    We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of

    A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.

    I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.

    He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.

    Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.
    OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam

    PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different
    Not for all of us. And I am still happy to say that Islam is a belief in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies - just like Christianity.
    It doesn't believe in the Trinity though, Islam sees Jesus as a prophet (albeit a less important one than Muhammad) but it doesn't see him as God and Holy Spirit too as Christians do
    I believe anyone should be allowed to indulge themselves in their own faith, whatever that may be.

    Where you and I differ is my view that such divinity is best served in solitude. Organized religion on the other hand is the root of much of the World's woes. It is not your Gods or your prophets who are to blame, it is avarice of men who build their churches, idols and finery with money they demand with menaces from the poor. From the Church of Rome to the Church of Scientology, Charlatans become wealthy and then politically connected to enhance that wealth.

    So when you pray in solitude, ask your God if he is angered that the CoE owns so much real estate here in the UK, and why don't the C of E liquidate these assets to clothe, feed and educate the needy?

    Substitute C of E for just about any faith based organised church throughout the World if you like.
    As the C of E is not a socialist organisation but a Christian organisation focused on worship of the living Christ. Yes it also provides foodbanks, schools and homeless shelters too but its ultimate purpose is to provide places of worship for fellow Anglicans to partake of Holy Communion, read the Bible and worship
    Jesus was a socialist.
    He wasn't, read the parable of the talents. He was also a social conservative, albeit with compassion for the sinner provided they recognised their sin
    Jesus was an orange book Lib Dem.
    Depending upon the passage he was somewhere between a socialist and an orange book Lib Dem.

    Sort of like the Archbishop of Canterbury.

    The tragedy of Christianity is that "Christians" are far more interested in the teachings of Paul than of Christ.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,656
    Andy_JS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Not all religions are the same.
    Nor even similar.

    Lutheranism seems to have delivered the best outcomes.
    Surely Mormonism?

    Utah is very rich, with relatively little homelessness and few substance issues. All the empirical evidence is that LDS adherents are happier than average too.

    If it wasn't for the ban on coffee and tea, and my lack of belief in God, I think I'd have probably given it a spin.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Alexandria, Virginia, in the 1850s. These photos still shock


    Wow. More info: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_and_Armfield_Office
    Alexandria VA was one of the biggest slave trading towns in the world, at one point. The history is intense

    They had a massive Slave pen here, whence they would despatch coffled slaves down the Natchez Trace to Nawlins

    I did the Natchez Trace last year. Barely any mention in the history of the 1-2m slaves marched down the road, in chains, in the huge domestic slave trade (which burgeoned after Atlantic trading was abolished and Britain enforced the rule)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,656

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    ^ this.

    If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

    It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

    If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
    I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

    We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of

    A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.

    I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.

    He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.

    Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.
    OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam

    PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different
    Not for all of us. And I am still happy to say that Islam is a belief in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies - just like Christianity.
    It doesn't believe in the Trinity though, Islam sees Jesus as a prophet (albeit a less important one than Muhammad) but it doesn't see him as God and Holy Spirit too as Christians do
    I believe anyone should be allowed to indulge themselves in their own faith, whatever that may be.

    Where you and I differ is my view that such divinity is best served in solitude. Organized religion on the other hand is the root of much of the World's woes. It is not your Gods or your prophets who are to blame, it is avarice of men who build their churches, idols and finery with money they demand with menaces from the poor. From the Church of Rome to the Church of Scientology, Charlatans become wealthy and then politically connected to enhance that wealth.

    So when you pray in solitude, ask your God if he is angered that the CoE owns so much real estate here in the UK, and why don't the C of E liquidate these assets to clothe, feed and educate the needy?

    Substitute C of E for just about any faith based organised church throughout the World if you like.
    As the C of E is not a socialist organisation but a Christian organisation focused on worship of the living Christ. Yes it also provides foodbanks, schools and homeless shelters too but its ultimate purpose is to provide places of worship for fellow Anglicans to partake of Holy Communion, read the Bible and worship
    Jesus was a socialist.
    He wasn't, read the parable of the talents. He was also a social conservative, albeit with compassion for the sinner provided they recognised their sin
    Jesus was an orange book Lib Dem.
    Depending upon the passage he was somewhere between a socialist and an orange book Lib Dem.

    Sort of like the Archbishop of Canterbury.

    The tragedy of Christianity is that "Christians" are far more interested in the teachings of Paul than of Christ.
    I'll have you know that Jesus never worked in the oil industry.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,866
    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    ^ this.

    If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

    It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

    If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.
    I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

    We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of

    A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.

    I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.

    He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.

    Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.
    OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam

    PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different
    Not for all of us. And I am still happy to say that Islam is a belief in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies - just like Christianity.
    It doesn't believe in the Trinity though, Islam sees Jesus as a prophet (albeit a less important one than Muhammad) but it doesn't see him as God and Holy Spirit too as Christians do
    I believe anyone should be allowed to indulge themselves in their own faith, whatever that may be.

    Where you and I differ is my view that such divinity is best served in solitude. Organized religion on the other hand is the root of much of the World's woes. It is not your Gods or your prophets who are to blame, it is avarice of men who build their churches, idols and finery with money they demand with menaces from the poor. From the Church of Rome to the Church of Scientology, Charlatans become wealthy and then politically connected to enhance that wealth.

    So when you pray in solitude, ask your God if he is angered that the CoE owns so much real estate here in the UK, and why don't the C of E liquidate these assets to clothe, feed and educate the needy?

    Substitute C of E for just about any faith based organised church throughout the World if you like.
    As the C of E is not a socialist organisation but a Christian organisation focused on worship of the living Christ. Yes it also provides foodbanks, schools and homeless shelters too but its ultimate purpose is to provide places of worship for fellow Anglicans to partake of Holy Communion, read the Bible and worship
    Jesus was a socialist.
    He wasn't, read the parable of the talents. He was also a social conservative, albeit with compassion for the sinner provided they recognised their sin
    Jesus was an orange book Lib Dem.
    Jesus was a better judge of character than the Lib Dems.


  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,149

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    'NADINE DORRIES: The sinister forces that stopped me, a girl, born into poverty in Liverpool, from reaching the House of Lords'
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12187013/NADINE-DORRIES-sinister-forces-stopped-girl-reaching-House-Lords.html

    She has a point. She is certainly treated worse, both by her opponents and those on her own side, because she is a working class woman. Angela Rayner similarly. There is a lot of classism in British political and media circles.
    Yes I agree. And yes, ditto Rayner
    There's this black lady I saw recently in an advert (I presume she must be a minor celeb) who sounds EXACTLY like Angela Rayner.
    A J Odudu?

    She's also a politics graduate from Keele University.
    Ah, thanks! Yes, that's her!
  • rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Not all religions are the same.
    Nor even similar.

    Lutheranism seems to have delivered the best outcomes.
    Surely Mormonism?

    Utah is very rich, with relatively little homelessness and few substance issues. All the empirical evidence is that LDS adherents are happier than average too.

    If it wasn't for the ban on coffee and tea, and my lack of belief in God, I think I'd have probably given it a spin.
    If it wasn't for the ban on meat I'd give vegetarianism a spin.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Not all religions are the same.
    Nor even similar.

    Lutheranism seems to have delivered the best outcomes.
    Surely Mormonism?

    Utah is very rich, with relatively little homelessness and few substance issues. All the empirical evidence is that LDS adherents are happier than average too.

    If it wasn't for the ban on coffee and tea, and my lack of belief in God, I think I'd have probably given it a spin.
    Think you may be going a wee bit overboard. For example, downtown Salt Lake City is not a total wonderland, though of course better than downtown Seattle . . . or even El Lay.

    Speaking of Seattle, we have a fairly sizable Mormon population, they have a temple in Shoreline, northern burb. PLUS we also have a large contingent of Jack Mormons, ranging from merely lapsed to actively anti-LDS. Similar to "recovering Catholics".

    A goodly segment of these, are refugees from Utah and southern Idaho which is largely an extension, demographically, of the Beehive State.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    edited June 2023
    Leon said:

    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Alexandria, Virginia, in the 1850s. These photos still shock


    Wow. More info: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_and_Armfield_Office
    Alexandria VA was one of the biggest slave trading towns in the world, at one point. The history is intense

    They had a massive Slave pen here, whence they would despatch coffled slaves down the Natchez Trace to Nawlins

    I did the Natchez Trace last year. Barely any mention in the history of the 1-2m slaves marched down the road, in chains, in the huge domestic slave trade (which burgeoned after Atlantic trading was abolished and Britain enforced the rule)
    By the 1830s, agricultural productivity in the old plantations of Tidewater Virginia and Maryland was plummeting due to soil exhaustion from two centuries of tobacco raising. The new boom lands, especially for cotton, were in the lower, Gulf South.

    Hence many planters up and relocated with their slaves. And even more turned their slaves into a replacement cash crop, by selling them down the river, and/or down the Natchez Trace.

    ADDENDUM - Major reason why the original District of Columbia west of the Potomac, was ceded back to Virginia in 1830s, was because of concern that Congress might one day abolish the slave trade in DC (by simple majority in both houses absent presidential veto) or even slavery itself.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,005

    .

    Sean_F said:

    Can I make a small point of order:

    IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

    That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).
    Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

    I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

    Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.
    Yea but you believe in Brexit which is a far far more ludicrous and illogical religion than any of HY's beliefs. I mean, you believed in Boris Johnson!! lol.

    The reality is Barty, you remind me of people of undeveloped intellect who think it makes them look very big and witty to compare religion with Father Christmas and fairies (in fact I recall you making such a juvenile and uninformed suggestion), when in fact most of your political beliefs are so all over the place that I think you would believe anything that was told to you by someone that you like/hero worshipped , particularly if it aligned with your personal gripes and prejudices, or perhaps they painted it on the side of a bus. The Judeo-Christian tradition has given us most of our civilisation and ability to reason critically, but it has clearly left little mark on you. Your critique of religion is generally misinformed at best and basically moronic at worst. I'd stay off the subject if I were as misinformed as you. Stick to something you can relate to like planning policy. It requires less thought.
    I would not ever compare religion to Father Christmas. The latter is real.

    I am Father Christmas for my kids, as my parents were before me and for me. Millions of people spend every December creating the magic of Christmas and ensuring that Father Christmas is real for their children.

    That's totally different to grown ups believing that sky fairies have decreed an absolute set of rules which should be enforced exactly as their prejudices happen to align or else you're a sinner.

    Our civilisation owes far more to the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans than it does Judeo-Christianism which jumped on the bandwagon of pre-existing civilisation.
    The ancient world, pre conversion to Christianity, is fascinating, but a place whose notions of right and wrong, and proper conduct, would be utterly alien and shocking to modern Western people. Much more alien than medieval Europe would be.
    This might be surprising to you, but there's this concept I believe in called 'evolution'.

    Our society has evolved from ancient times to today. Our society has evolved within my own lifetime. In my own lifetime we've evolved from gays being ostracised and unable to get married to completely accepted. We've evolved from ethnic minorities being no more than a "Token Black" on TV (as South Park literally named that character) if there was even a Token on the show, to interracial entertainment being completely normal.

    In my parents or grandparents lifetime we've evolved further still.

    So why should it be remotely shocking that we have evolved even further from Ancient times? Or Medieval times?

    That's kind of the whole point. There's no single text, no one book, no one belief system that sums up who we are and how we got here. We are more than the sum of our parts. We are thousands of years of societal evolution which has been built upon concepts that existed from ancient times and have evolved since and adapted since.
    In ancient times people were often more "progressive" in terms of social concepts in some respects that us modern times people, for example homosexuality was more accepted and divorce
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,656

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Not all religions are the same.
    Nor even similar.

    Lutheranism seems to have delivered the best outcomes.
    Surely Mormonism?

    Utah is very rich, with relatively little homelessness and few substance issues. All the empirical evidence is that LDS adherents are happier than average too.

    If it wasn't for the ban on coffee and tea, and my lack of belief in God, I think I'd have probably given it a spin.
    If it wasn't for the ban on meat I'd give vegetarianism a spin.
    Also, Mormon girls are cute.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Not all religions are the same.
    Nor even similar.

    Lutheranism seems to have delivered the best outcomes.
    Surely Mormonism?

    Utah is very rich, with relatively little homelessness and few substance issues. All the empirical evidence is that LDS adherents are happier than average too.

    If it wasn't for the ban on coffee and tea, and my lack of belief in God, I think I'd have probably given it a spin.
    If it wasn't for the ban on meat I'd give vegetarianism a spin.
    Also, Mormon girls are cute.
    Bet you have a secret crush on Marie Osmund.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,656

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Not all religions are the same.
    Nor even similar.

    Lutheranism seems to have delivered the best outcomes.
    Surely Mormonism?

    Utah is very rich, with relatively little homelessness and few substance issues. All the empirical evidence is that LDS adherents are happier than average too.

    If it wasn't for the ban on coffee and tea, and my lack of belief in God, I think I'd have probably given it a spin.
    If it wasn't for the ban on meat I'd give vegetarianism a spin.
    Also, Mormon girls are cute.
    Bet you have a secret crush on Marie Osmund.
    I've never even heard of Marie Osmund.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606

    Leon said:

    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Alexandria, Virginia, in the 1850s. These photos still shock


    Wow. More info: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_and_Armfield_Office
    Alexandria VA was one of the biggest slave trading towns in the world, at one point. The history is intense

    They had a massive Slave pen here, whence they would despatch coffled slaves down the Natchez Trace to Nawlins

    I did the Natchez Trace last year. Barely any mention in the history of the 1-2m slaves marched down the road, in chains, in the huge domestic slave trade (which burgeoned after Atlantic trading was abolished and Britain enforced the rule)
    By the 1830s, agricultural productivity in the old plantations of Tidewater Virginia and Maryland was plummeting due to soil exhaustion from two centuries of tobacco raising. The new boom lands, especially for cotton, were in the lower, Gulf South.

    Hence many planters up and relocated with their slaves. And even more turned their slaves into a replacement cash crop, by selling them down the river, and/or down the Natchez Trace.

    ADDENDUM - Major reason why the original District of Columbia west of the Potomac, was ceded back to Virginia in 1830s, was because of concern that Congress might one day abolish the slave trade in DC (by simple majority in both houses absent presidential veto) or even slavery itself.
    Fascinating!

    It is, also, an unfortunate fact that the most compelling aspects of many these Southern towns is the history of slavery. Everything else, with the possible exception of the Civil or Revolutionary Wars (if they were involved) is dull as heck. “So-and-so opened a drapers store in 1838”. Yawn. “THIS fugitive slave was lynched here in 1849” - OMFG

    I feel a bit guilty focusing on it, but it is the juicy stuff. It’s like going to Cambodia. They try to sell you histories of ancient Cambodian folk music or the story of Cambodia’s 19th century kings but all anyone really wants is the Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot, the Killing Fields. So they sigh - and pile those books high. And they sell
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,416

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Not all religions are the same.
    Nor even similar.

    Lutheranism seems to have delivered the best outcomes.
    Surely Mormonism?

    Utah is very rich, with relatively little homelessness and few substance issues. All the empirical evidence is that LDS adherents are happier than average too.

    If it wasn't for the ban on coffee and tea, and my lack of belief in God, I think I'd have probably given it a spin.
    If it wasn't for the ban on meat I'd give vegetarianism a spin.
    Also, Mormon girls are cute.
    Bet you have a secret crush on Marie Osmund.
    But what about her brothers Danny and Jamie, and their hits such as "Crazy Zebras", "Love me for a Raisin", and who could forget "Long Haired Liver From Hartlepool"

    😀😀😀
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792
    Leon said:

    OK I’ve made it to Alexandria. It is indeed pleasant. Thank you for the sound advice to come here. I now need oysters in a relaxed setting. Suggestions welcome

    Ah, glad you are enjoying it.
  • YokesYokes Posts: 1,345
    edited June 2023
    Ukraine. Just where are the Challenger 2s, about half the Leopard 2s and the Marder and CV90 IFVS. In short the heaviest armoured kit currently believed to be in country.

    Other than sightings of a number of Leopard 2s, the rest has yet to appear in one single picture.

    Tobias Ellwood thinks he knows something is coming, does he?

    Maybe the direction of travel could be East, not South
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,302
    Yokes said:

    Ukraine. Just where ate the Challenger 2s, about half the Leopard 2s and the Marder and CV90 IFVS. In short the heaviest armoured kit currently believed to be in country.

    Other than sightings of a number of Leopard 2s, the rest has yet to appear in one single picture.

    Tbias Ellwood thinks he knows something is coming, does he?

    Maybe the direction of travel could be East not South

    Do you think they will take the route 'through the Ardennes' and go through Russia proper to go around their defences?
This discussion has been closed.