|
|
Post by Big_Rons_Leather_Coat on Nov 17, 2015 12:49:12 GMT
Public display of porn is illegal. It was a stretch but you can see what I mean. I do see your point mate. 100% and you have me thinking and questioning myself which is a good thing. But genuinely I think religion in all parts of the world has too much credibility given to it based on no facts to back it up. I think it is dangerous and the world is heading for meltdown as a result.
For me we all enter the world with a naked conscious and belief and leave this world with the same thing when we realise just at the pint of death what it is all about. Our lives are an ego that we acquire and religion is fundamental to the characteristics of this ego. Is this a good thing?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2015 12:54:29 GMT
It was a stretch but you can see what I mean. I do see your point mate. 100% and you have me thinking and questioning myself which is a good thing. But genuinely I think religion in all parts of the world has too much credibility given to it based on no facts to back it up. I think it is dangerous and the world is heading for meltdown as a result.
For me we all enter the world with a naked conscious and belief and leave this world with the same thing when we realise just at the pint of death what it is all about. Our lives are an ego that we acquire and religion is fundamental to the characteristics of this ego. Is this a good thing?
I agree. I find religion tedious and silly. I make it a point now that I'm older to not worry about things like that. You are definitely correct about some meanings behind the fully clothed women. You also have me thinking about it in a different way. |
|
|
|
Post by Jayrannasaurus on Nov 17, 2015 14:11:34 GMT
The Denial of Death, by Ernest Becker.
Also: Terror Management Theory.
In a nutshell.
|
|
|
|
Post by CaajScot on Nov 17, 2015 14:44:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Tatty on Nov 17, 2015 16:41:22 GMT
Not touching this thread with anything. I've read about 4 replies, and I'm already shaking my head in disbelief.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2015 16:58:04 GMT
Not touching this thread with anything. I've read about 4 replies, and I'm already shaking my head in disbelief.please enlighten us with your knowledge |
|
|
|
Post by Jayrannasaurus on Nov 17, 2015 17:36:52 GMT
Not touching this thread with anything. I've read about 4 replies, and I'm already shaking my head in disbelief. Always a better idea, religious beliefs shouldn't be a debate - they're whatever you'd personally like them to be, as long as it's peaceful. |
|
.
United School Boy
Posts: 0
|
Post by . on Nov 17, 2015 17:36:58 GMT
So we shouldn't help the 10,000,000 refugees because 1 terrorist is purported to have registered as a refugee...? Many of these comments are straight out of the BNP playbook, or like reading Skrewdriver lyrics, or watching Romper Stomper. And how exactly is going into Syria with troops going to turn out any differently than the US adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan? Did they come up with a magical new device that tells us who the bad guys are now, when they all fade back into the civilian population? They want us to come over there with overwhelming force. They want another quagmire. The trillions of dollars wasted, and the civilian lives, and our military casualties, are criminal. We were lied into the last war, we had no exit strategy, and it nearly bankrupted us. The world is not measurably safer today. It didn't work last time. If France wants to go in and bomb the shit out of ISIS, let them. Then maybe Jordan, Turkey, Saudi, and other countries will do the same thing. Muslim countries need to shut down ISIS. The US will help, but we are not taking the ball on this one. The last war you were lied into, the lack of a coherent exit strategy, helped create this situation. Yes, I said as much. There is no exit strategy in the current one either, so what result will it achieve. |
|
.
United School Boy
Posts: 0
|
Post by . on Nov 17, 2015 17:42:59 GMT
The email hoax letter Paul posted here is a BNP/white nationalist/skinhead bit of propaganda, and people here were writing that even though it's a hoax they still agree with the sentiment behind it. I am calling out that sentiment as racist, as BNP-friendly, as fucked up, and wrong. If you don't like being lumped in with skinheads, maybe you should examine your beliefs. Not calling anyone in particular out. It's easy to get overly emotional in the face of horrific events, but this is exactly when we need to stick to our principles, to remember our better nature, and to continue to win the war of ideas - as I initially posted. Do not give in to hate, do not give in to xenophobia.
|
|
.
United School Boy
Posts: 0
|
Post by . on Nov 17, 2015 17:50:32 GMT
Here's an Editorial from the LA Times: www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-1117-syrian-refugees-20151117-story.htmlIt was inevitable that the terrorism attacks in Paris last week would echo quickly through the U.S. presidential campaign. Given the stream of nativist rhetoric already out there, it was also inevitable that some politicians' responses would be highly objectionable, beginning with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz's assertion that the United States should accept only Christian refugees from the Syrian conflict. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush sounded a similar note, calling for special efforts to protect Christians in the region; never mind that Islamic State jihadists target fellow Muslims with just as much viciousness. It's preposterous that a serious contender for the presidency of the U.S. would bar war refugee status based on someone's religion. And the suggestion by GOP candidate Ben Carson that the U.S. bar all Syrian refugees for fear that a "sleeper" terrorist might slip in is an emotional, and ill-conceived, overreaction, as are pledges by several Republican governors to resist efforts to resettle refugees in their states. That's not to suggest that the U.S. should accept any and all comers. - The United States doesn't have the same challenge as Europe, whose relative proximity to the Middle Eastern war zone has left it inundated with millions of refugees. And the source isn't just Syria and Iraq; refugees — both political and economic — from Africa have landed in Europe as well. There are few good options for stopping that tide without first stabilizing the regions from which it arises; a political solution to the Syrian civil war is a crucial first step to achieving that stability. We haven't faced this exodus simply because it is so much harder for Syrian refugees to arrive at the border and seek asylum. President Obama affirmed in Turkey on Tuesday that "America has to step up and do its part" in providing for war refugees, which presumably includes moving ahead with his plan to accept up to 10,000 Syrian refugees this fiscal year, up from fewer than 2,000. This page has argued that the U.S. should take significantly more because there are too many for Europe to absorb and because of our history as a safe haven. Nothing in the Paris attacks changes that. That's not to suggest that the U.S. should accept any and all comers. What the Republican candidates ignore, though, is that there is already a system in place to vet the refugees. To gain entry to the U.S., a Syrian refugee first must pass rigorous screening by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which verifies personal backgrounds and details before recommending individuals for resettlement to the United States. Then the Department of Homeland Security does its own screening before a refugee is granted entry and protection. It makes sense to be prudent and diligent when accepting refugees from a region of such threat and instability. But it defies what the nation stands for to deny a safe haven for the persecuted based on their faith, nation of origin, or our fear. |
|
.
United School Boy
Posts: 0
|
Post by . on Nov 17, 2015 18:01:07 GMT
So we shouldn't help the 10,000,000 refugees because 1 terrorist is purported to have registered as a refugee...? Many of these comments are straight out of the BNP playbook, or like reading Skrewdriver lyrics, or watching Romper Stomper. And how exactly is going into Syria with troops going to turn out any differently than the US adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan? Did they come up with a magical new device that tells us who the bad guys are now, when they all fade back into the civilian population? They want us to come over there with overwhelming force. They want another quagmire. The trillions of dollars wasted, and the civilian lives, and our military casualties, are criminal. We were lied into the last war, we had no exit strategy, and it nearly bankrupted us. The world is not measurably safer today. It didn't work last time. If France wants to go in and bomb the shit out of ISIS, let them. Then maybe Jordan, Turkey, Saudi, and other countries will do the same thing. Muslim countries need to shut down ISIS. The US will help, but we are not taking the ball on this one. Give off. That is exactly my point about not having free speech, as soon as someone disagrees with a comment it 'hurrr BMP, DURRRR racist' Show me how you are being punished for your views, deprived of your livelihood, or imprisoned for speaking your mind? That's what freedom of speech means. It doesn't mean you can say anything you like and no one can criticize you for it. |
|
|
|
Post by Jayrannasaurus on Nov 17, 2015 18:15:00 GMT
Lads, let's leave it here shall we - no need for any of this to go beyond the bickering it has been - none of this is conducive to a constructive atmosphere on the forum.
This was a pretty spot on video, worth a gander:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2015 18:41:46 GMT
Give off. That is exactly my point about not having free speech, as soon as someone disagrees with a comment it 'hurrr BMP, DURRRR racist' Show me how you are being punished for your views, deprived of your livelihood, or imprisoned for speaking your mind? That's what freedom of speech means. It doesn't mean you can say anything you like and no one can criticize you for it. " (1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress. " en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom (spelling mistakes above are directly from the site) basically ANYTHING that is said can be seen to he a hate crime, literally anything. It only takes one person to be 'offended' and then its some kind of crime. so no, rubbish - free speech is an illusion that people cling too. Also, I'm not being punished for any views - I was replying to your post and specifically the part I highlighted. |
|
|
|
Post by Stew on Nov 17, 2015 19:31:17 GMT
See, even on here this stuff causes rows. The only thing religion is good for is some sort of solace for older people when they reach the end. Otherwise it's always been an excuse for various cunts to behave in cuntish ways
|
|
|
|
Post by Stew on Nov 17, 2015 19:43:34 GMT
The last war you were lied into, the lack of a coherent exit strategy, helped create this situation. Yes, I said as much. There is no exit strategy in the current one either, so what result will it achieve. I don't know, maybe you might help fix the ungodly mess you've made? |
|
