Total posts: 4,920
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Neighbors refer to everyone you know.
No it doesn't. It means people adjacent to the house you live in.
If you love your neighbors how can you be for the death of your neighbor? Death penalty, war and interment camps.
War with Iran?,No. If they threaten us again though, we should bomb them, as a warning shot
What if Trump declared war on Iran? Would you be for it?
You never implied internment camp, why don't you define it as it's your argument
I didn't need to imply it. I said it. Go read my arguments before going through what you are parroting off your idols.
Again, you have to prove that "slavery" in the Bible was harsh and it was like owning property, you have not.
No I don't. I said the Bible doesn't condemn slavery that is human property. I have clearly shown it doesn't and in some cases even mentions what to do to them.
It's not religion,its controlling the situation
You dislike what Islam thinks therefore you agree with Trump on the Muslim ban. Your a bigot. It is that simple.
Transgenders are mentally ill, have a problem with that, go ahead,report me, Consveratives 30 years ago, evidence? and yeah Democrats were also against homosexuality
Don't really care about your transgender comment because you didn't elaborate on what you mean.
The thing is the democrats have changed. Republican haven't. They still have those biases against homosexuals but deny being homophobic but given from what they preach out of which is the Bible they are clearly anti-homosexuality. I don't need every Republican to be an Evangelical to be correct. I only need the majority or the representative as in Trump to support the Bible.
What?, where do you get that from?
How are Antifa domestic terrorists?
Radical is ideas that are considered relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough.
What is more radical than communism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
What? how
How many neighbors do you have?
Are you for the Iran war?
and what is a camp?, well a concentration camp
I meant internment camp did I not or do you not realize the difference? I specifically didn't say concentration because I know how triggered conservatives get over it.
Who said it was owning property back then?
No-one needs to say they are something for it to be true. A murderer can say he is not a murderer but still be one. Have you actually got an argument that the Bible condemns human property or am I going to get the same thing out of you?
Yes I have an argument?
Then give it.
Trump's muslim ban is to control the situation, it was temporary too.
How is that not bigotry?
Transgenders is a mental illness, so unfit to join the military,Gay people are allowed now.
You just called transgender people mentally ill when conservatives back lets say 30 years had gays being mentally ill?
Antifa is domestic terrorism
So your a bigot?
Socialists are fine, they disagree with me
Okay.
Communists are semi-radical.
What is radical then?
Democrats are people who I disagree with on the political scale. Don't know why you would ask this,but ok
Okay.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Guess Christianity doesn't even advocate for love. Thank you for telling me that.Your supposed to love each-other in general,not literarily
-"Mark 12:31 (ASV) The second is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."
Finally you have shown a quote that does show Christianity support love but not for all. Now I know why Evangelicals who are mostly Republican support foreign wars. Why should I love my neighbor?
No. Sorry AOC is wrong 100%, and those "camps",where AOC provided no evidence, the laws for these was put under Clinton and Obama
Not important. The analogy was an analogy. You haven't said how the analogy is wrong simply stated you disagree with terms I used. Tell me what is a camp?
Any evidence Biblical slavery was worse than the harsh slavery which referred to 17-19th century America's slavery.Again, were these "slaves" treated poorly, how do you define slavery.
Having humans as property. Bondservants is human property therefore Christianity supports slaves even when you try to change the words.
The Bible is love,not immoral, so your argument is wrong and like what Supa said:
If I said The Bible is hate and immoral we would be going no where. Do you actually have an argument?
Banning someone on religion is bigotry
What do you think of Trump's Muslim ban?
What do you think of LGBTQ people not being able to be in the army?
What do you think of Antifa?
What do you think of socialists?
What do you think of communists?
What do you think of Democrats?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
In love. You would have to be in love in order to be commanded to do that. If you are not in love that is not a command and my earlier statement there is no command to be loving is correct until you have a verse for it.Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Ephesians 4:2
But was slavery in the Bible the same as harsh slavery?
Was Jewish internment camps as bad as immigration camps in the US? Lol. They are still internment camps like how slavery is still slavery.
For example, slaves and masters are addressed in Paul’s epistles. The term “slave” in Ephesians 6:5 is better translated “bondservant.” The Bible in no way gives full support to the practice of bondservants, who were certainly not paid the first century equivalent of the minimum wage.
Okay then. Blacks who were enslaved were also bond-servants. Instead of supplying them with money they instead supplied them with shelter so that they can profit of their backs.
The Bible in no way gives full support to the practice of bondservants
What were we talking about? Bondservants or slavery?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
You are not allowed to restrict people's freedom of speech and religion in America just because of your political ideology.
Given that cults and Religion are pretty much the same thing. When cults do break a law that is lets say kidnapping, murdering or child exploitation. Freedom of Religion/cults go out the window and in comes in jail and sentencing of cult leaders and acolytes.
You are a bigot toward other religions because of your belief. Banning Christian and Christianity is discrimation. Proof that you are a bigot
Christianity hasn't outright said it is against slavery. That is one reason why those ideas shouldn't be spread.
Are you going to address how Christianity is pro-slavery, pro-women subjugation and anti-homosexuality?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
You're assuming all Christian are homophobic and want to ban them all. Bigotry at its finest
Chrisitanity. There is a difference between Christians and Christianity.
Correction to this
"I think being Religious as in Christian pretty much should be banable but since that isn't the stance that bsh1 takes then I can't do anything."
Christianity is bad.
Guess you are a bigot to homophobic people even though you commit a special pleading fallacy to the book your hold dear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Discrimating someone based off religion is bigotry. You removing Christian people is discrimination. Therefore it is bigotry
Guess you are against removing harassers (the very thing you are arguing for here(Contradiction)), doxxers from the site. Noted.
Any argument or can you not defend the very Religion you are apart of?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
This is bigotry at its purest. Why should christianity and conservativism be banned while liberals and gays stay? We need a balance on this site.
I have clearly laid the main problems of Christianity if we care about homophobia, women subjugation and slavery. Instead of actually debunking my claims you instead decide to name call. You are not arguing against me instead calling me names. That is not how you tell me how I am wrong.
Want to actually try and defend Christianity or do you want to call me a bigot for clearly representing Christianities stance on slaves? I would be a bigot if I dislike differing viewpoints generally. Given that I speak about more than just Relgion and it isn't common that I engage in opinions I do dislike I can't be called a bigot. I would have to more on the side of disliking other people's opinions instead of liking their opinions or have no stance. You would have to show how I am a bigot instead of calling me it if this was about if I was a bigot. It isn't and do try to provide a rebuttal.
Created:
Posted in:
Bible verses about love and family, how should Christian be a bannable offense
Old Testament and New Testament on slavery. I'll quote
Exodus 21:8
If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
That was the Old Testament.
New Testament:
Ephesians 6:5
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
Ephesians 6:6
Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;
Ephesians 6:7
With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:
Ephesians 6:8
Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.
Not a single verse states that slavery is morally evil or bad.
Bible verses about love and family, how should Christian be a bannable offense
Based on these quotes:
- Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 1 Corinthians 13:4-8
- And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. 1 Corinthians 13:13
- Do everything in love. 1 Corinthians 16:14
- Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Ephesians 4:2
- Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. 1 Peter 4:8
- Hatred stirs up conflict, but love covers over all wrongs. Proverbs 10:12
- Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 1 John 4:8
- Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Romans 12:9
Not a single verse commands any Christians to be loving as clearly seen by the verses here nor does it condemn slavery. Any chance of finding a verse that condemns slavery or are you keep going to give me metaphors from the Bible that doesn't actually address my contentions?
Created:
Posted in:
I think being Religious as in Christian pretty much should be banable but since that isn't the stance that bsh1 takes then I can't do anything.
List of reasons why Chrisitanity should be bannable but can't due to the open platform that the moderators want it to be:
- Can't condemn slavery that was permitted and has yet to be excused in the Bible.
- Women subjugation
- Homophobia (the very thing SupaDudz is stating to enforce even though the most common offenders of this are in fact Chrisitans like himself)
So yeah.
This kind of similar to Twitter where if they lets say added a functionality which bans white nationalists this would of course target right wingers. Kind of like this because if we really wanted to condemn women subjugation, homophobia and slavery we would be removing Religious people that are more common on the right than left.
Since this isn't going to be enforced nor even applied I will leave it at that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Guess my maths is failing me.
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
Virtuoso I wouldn't block even if it were viable but Bsh1 I would, so Virtuoso counts.
You haven't had a heated exchange with Virtuoso. All it boils down to is that why aren't you the head? Your problem was never with Virutoso even though it could be levied at him. Your problem was always with bsh1. Doesn't count.
Outplayz
Uses anecdotes to justify his decisions while also hardly defending his position thoroughly enough. I wouldn't consider any conversation I had with him to be heated.
coal
The AMA guy? I would like proof of this so called heated exchange. All he does is respond to questions or this one where he had a problem and made a entire topic post about it.
DrChristineFord
Never heard of her so I'll wait for links to a heated exchange.
Mike/Admin (like Virt, he is on my friend's list, I wouldn't block even if I could)
Debateart.com has never done anything remotely heated to even use him for your examples.
GreyParrot
Really? I would like to see it to believe it and your reasoning before I call it an exception from the rule.
Mharman
He listens and I haven't an exchange which I would considered heated. He conceded polling was bad so if you had an heated exchange I would also like to see it.
MrMaestro
Don't know too much about him. Apart from he simply decided to give his ideas instead of getting heated in a topic post I created or WrickItRalph did so I would also like evidence for this.
Nd24007
The person who gets high and decides to post about it? No chance.
3RU7AL
Would like to see the heated exchange you lost.
It was your irresponsibility and incapacity to convey a joke that led to me taking literally what you meant as a joke.
Your inability to realize it was a joke led to you blaming someone else for your shortcomings? You don't have a God complex right?
You're also deluded in thinking that Ramshutu was joking about paying you to write my page, he genuinely wants to humiliate me that much. He is deadly serious about writing my page, you're the one in the dark clearly.
IrrationalMadman finally shown he has yet to change. Even with Ramshutu beat you in a debate where if you showed one nickle of evidence you would have won about Ramshutu intentionally being against you. You couldn't.
I didn't disrespect you by blocking you
Where did I even mention my blocking?
I respected that you can upset me and reduce the quality of my enjoyment of the website.
Upset? More like I try to make you understand something. You get annoyed. I get annoyed then you blocked me. Not my fault you can't understanding basic things like you need evidence for your claim to be supported.
You already sicken me with how you climb the forum leaderboard almost solely on tactical spam (this thread) and non-tactical spam (the REEE thread).
You can do that too. It is not like the very thing open to me is not open to you.
I have a lot of reasons to block you and you replying that mocking and disrespectful to me, even if it was meant as a joke, shows how little regard you have for me or my wishes.
Your wishes? Please do put in on your profile before accusing me of getting on your ever so expanding block list. I wish that feature so I can see how many people you can't take criticizing you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Sorry I missed out like 4.2 billion people.
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
You block because of your God complex. You think the world revolves around you and people are out to get you. There are 4.5 billion people in the world. I think you are full of yourself if you think even a shred of those people even care about let alone a shred of people on this site. You might have a mental illness which makes you think you are more important than you actually are or have an over-inflated ego. I'll go with the later. With this in mind you block people. People who don't challenge you you don't block but people who do you do block. If this was false you would be able to mention a single person you didn't block that you have been involved in a heated exchange with. I fail to find that person which is why I conclude this. You can't take criticism. You think you are better everyone else so you decide assume that to be true when the opposite is true. Your not that good at whatever you think that you are good at then masquerade in talk and blocking. You won't comprehend what I just said because there is no 3rd option in your mind. There is only a person who I haven't had a heated exchange with and the person who I blocked.
Long story short. Ramshutu is joking. Try and not to be salty and maybe Ramshutu wouldn't find it so easy to offend you or invoke a reaction.
This is speculation but your pretty bad at hiding your insecurities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Don't think so no.do you have any intuitive beliefs beyond the the fact of the finite, occupied space we observe?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Define right. Just want to see what it means for you.the people have a right to a gun for a militia. the text means what it says.
Created:
Posted in:
I never said it was. Socialism like capitalism has never actually being tried nor do I want it to happen. I much rather a mixed economy where you can have both socialist policies and capitalist policies. Basically the best of both.you are correct that social safety net policies are socialist policies. but you can't say that it's a socialist system.
doesn't mean we support socialism.
What is your objection to socialism?
i really dont know if i would support war with iran to take nukes they already have.
Okay.
that link has plenty of examples of things to cut that anyone can find something they would cut. it also includes spending increase possibilities. for example, i am not fundamentally opposed to the head start program, but i dont think the end results are worth the cost. it's just a trumped up day care system in the end.
Reasonable but do you think it is likely to occur?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
What if the only way the US was able to remove Iran's nukes they required be at war with them?i'm not sure if id be for war with iran if they already have nukes. only to stop them from getting them.
socilism is when you redistribute money to everyone and have almost all human needs taken care of by the government.
Socialism is redistribution. An application of re distributive policies is taxes and another is a service like public healthcare.
it's just a basic social safety net.
Social safety net is a socialist policy. It is a form of redistribution where as in the government from other avenues use it to buy things for the homeless.
Your knowledge about what socialism is kind of stops you from learning what it is. Basically socialism is redistribution. Capitalism is private trade. Communism is government owned trade.
Why do you support less spending by the government and what would you like to cut spending off of?
Just basically address my questions I gave. There are a total of 2 and the rest are up to you to argue or discuss against.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Then I was correct. You do want war and I didn't even state the reason so your distinction about preventing Iran having a nuke isn't a distinction. I might be getting wrong this wrong so I'll ask a question: If it meant war with Iran to get the nukes would you be for war?i do not support war with iran except to prevent them getting a nuke.
ive backed away from backing trump from getting out of the nuke deal, because most of iran's terrorism backing was plausible self defense and interest and didn't really affect the usa as much.
Okay didn't think you would say that.
i support limiting abortions and reducing spending like republicans do.
Do you take the position that the government is inefficient or do you not like lets say the government being in control of healthcare?
but if he did i'd support warren because she puts restraint on student loan discharges and isn't a socialist.
Can you define a socialist?
Then tell me how Warren's positions are not socialist.
literally, many of trump's policies will result in human death
Nice to hear.
so yes i support public healthcare, and yes that is the biggest thing we can fix to help society.
If you didn't talk about healthcare above. How is public healthcare not a socialist policy?
is there a quick way to quote and reply to each part of a person's response? that doesnt involve copy and pasting and such?
Haven't had the pleasure of it. I have gotten use to it and I think I am fast at doing those actions so it doesn't bother me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
I don't really want to. I'll have the fanstasical events in my dreams and video games rather then stating a fantastical event has occurred even though we don't know it occurred.I mean what we see is finite occupied space and if you if you have no intuitive belief beyond that fact , that is fine with me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Why are you pro war? (Iran war specifically if not then explain your position)
What Republican position do you support?
Who is better Warren or Sanders?
Who is worse Hillary of Trump?
Are you for public healthcare?
What is one thing you would change that you think would provide the most amount of benefit to America? (Easy answer but I want to see if others understand it)
Created:
Posted in:
Oh well I am all for slave labor. Just remove the slave part and they will be fine with it. Say something like your name will be remembered my wiki would be seen by others.I don't mean paid writers. I mean volunteers.
laborers my picks are orogami and SupaDudz.
You can have a tournament and have an amount of winners which would be the ones in charge of creating DA wiki pages or maybe just have one person or maybe 1 head like orogami and 2 underlings like SupaDudz and someone else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
I don't know nor am I going to make a claim I can't support.Did the occupied space BB --Universe as we know it-- stem from a prior-to-BB existence of an occupied space Universe?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
That would cost money I would much rather spend on developing the site. I instead call for a competition to see who in DA would like to be the writers and you, Virtuoso and Ramshutu decide who the writers are. That away it is free and the people who wanted to write did it willingly. A competition can be about who was able to provide the best overview of a DA member either all of them do the same member or they have different members each which would mean more work for the three of you.recruit 3-4 "writers"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Pinkfreud08
Cool idea. Who will have control over the wiki?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Pinkfreud08
Basically do this
Pinkfreud08, bsh1, Debateart.com,
Comma and space should allow you to receive more people.
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
There are not real positives or negatives in terms of 'good trait' or its counterpart in life.
Do you consider someone enjoying themselves without harming others a negative?
Everyone has times when there exact strengths in one way are weaknesses in another
I am more focused on it as a whole which is why a psychopath as a whole as in if he/she was allowed to commit what he/she did more than likely it won't outweigh what he/she could do in getting other psychopaths. Depends on what i count as a positive or negative but stopping one psychopath is not going to outweigh the countless victims of the psychopath that helped if the psychopath went on a killing spree.
Now are you going to shine?
We can make it specific to a specific environment. As a whole in a specific environment as in a specific version and how well you are doing in everything.
Lets take WoW. Never played it but I think I can make an analogy. On update X a person is the best PVP'er but that only takes up a 1/12 of he/she's time on the game whereas a person who is good at PVE is apply to be positive for 11/12 of their time playing the game. Even if the PVP'er was better at PVP it still doesn't match the consistency of the PVE'er which is able to be positive for a longer period of time. Positive as in useful not happy in this case.
you can't be anti-natalist and not hold in contempt, whether you forgive or not, your parents for having had you and society for wanting to carry on and brainwash us in the media to marry, love and raise children as happy families etc.
Well I guess you can't. Anti-natalism applies a negative value to birth if they are born then they will be started as a negative and under their view can eventually become a positive but doesn't mean an anti-natalist doesn't want to have children. I think it would be more so children that would not have a positive life in a current predicament which should not be brought into the world whether it be a genetic disease or being poor. "should not be brought" would be under what that anti-natalist would value.
No. We'd be killing everyone or making things terrible for all by having children after the cure for ageing becomes attainable to the masses, if they are having children without being an 'opt-out of immortality' type.
What if we found a matrix and only took up the space we take right now not an entire house? Would it still be terrible for people to make children?
Created:
Posted in:
It means no Religion. As in a secular government. Are you telling me a humanist government is a Religious government?Secular means worldly, ok?
A secularist only sees the material world as all that there is. They denial spiritual matters so they are secularists.A secular government doesn't deal in matters of religion, it deals with worldly things.A theocracy or more accurately called a clericocracy, and that is a religious institution with secular authority.Theocracy literally means God ruled.
Not really explaining your definition. I already know your definition is based off the past not the present which is the disagreement. Lets agree to disagree. I don't see the point in arguing with definitions when the last time we did it didn't go anyway for either of us.
Created:
Posted in:
Well, that is not how the word is used in our writings, so I will chalk this up as another example of newspeak that is being used to pervert the minds of youth away from the truth.
Not the current day usage. The Bible is not a current book. It is an old book which is not used as a basis for the dictionary which is why secular can mean something else in the Christian community than in other communities.
A definition is a definition. It was never enough nor even a gateway to anti-Christianity. If it was we would see some sort of rise in atheism/agnosticism when the secular was changed. I don't want to take the time to find out myself but you can.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
As much as I want to I can't. If you were here before now I would be able to debate you like how I can't debate you now. I am conceding accepting the debate. I didn't say I lost because I am simply saying I can't accept. There is a difference.So you're conceding the debate? After all that fuss about "truth" & "wrong"... should've known.
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
Plenty. Put a monkey in a tank of water and a fish on a tree. Point made.
Okay? We have the ability to make decide on morality whereas a monkey nor a fish can't due to how easy it is for certain humans to survive. If you want me to be more clear then I am specifically talking about humans.
Unlike pro-choicers, this outlook is inherently toxic to have. You may as well want to kill yourself if you believe this...
I can say the likely conclusion of any Ben Shapiro fanboy is anarchism given their dislike for taxes but they still deny it. Can you make the link between the negative value of birth and wanting to commit suicide or assisted suicide?
There is only one scenario where it's true, which is if we have cured ageing with enough people alive such that we've evolved beyond the actual mechanism of evolution... Reproduction.
Why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
1. Localized averages. Parents in the USA cannot compete with parents in Luxembourg, and it would not be a fair to expectation.2. I have not written any doctoral thesis papers on the topic.3. Yup.
Okay.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Historical usage doesn't matter to the current and more agreed upon usage. Historical definition would matter if we don't have a present day definition of it. When we think of secular we see things likes a human rights court like the EU has. We don't see the Pope and say he is secular.I am using the correct historical usage of the world secular, which even in the case of so called "theocracies" refers to the aspect of them that makes laws, levies armies, and all the things a worldly or secular government does.
The new definition or current definition specifically states it have no Religious ties.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Ask Ramshutu. I can't debate this. It will take too long given the amount of depth I would have to go to.
If Ramshutu doesn't want to do it then simply have it open and if unitelligble people accept the debate you will get free wins and you can use the comment section to decide a better candidate.
Sorry about that. Learnt my lesson for accepting debates that I have no real interest in partaking in like the more recent border wall. It was a catfight turned into a debate. Rarely turns into something fruitful. My main reason is still time even if I was given a week to post arguments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
@keithprosser
@Stephen
@Mopac
Just for clarification if a government is under a rule of a Religion it is not secular. Yassine mentioned a Caliph is secular but it isn't.
3 definitions of secular below:
@Yassine and whoever I had as a reciever wants to read this
I do understand where you got the worldly definition but when people say secular what they mean is a non-Religious government in the context of when they are talking about the government.
Secular Merriam Webster: not overtly or specifically religious
Secular Oxford Dictionary: Not connected with religious or spiritual matters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I'd say when the parents are dedicating enough resources to give the child a more than average shot at an enjoyable life.On the other end of the spectrum, some parents today still have kids for the express purpose of cheap labor (AKA slaves).
More than average in the US or across the world?
Do you have a percentage on how many do you think have a shot at an enjoyable life?
Do you know a shot doesn't actually mean they will take it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Okay.My initial problem is how to weigh the positive and negative aspects - indeed maybe the problem is identifying what the negative and positive aspects are!
Created:
Posted in:
I am making it as clear as I possibly can. Islam bad. You should dislike bad. Is that okay? I have clearly laid out why as well.I don't understand. Just keep it simple, why should "I dislike Islam". I want prosser to understand why it is that YOU say I "should dislike islam".
i don't care. It matters not to me or what I have said if or not this prick has children that attend that school. The point is, that it is muslims protesting about something that conflicts with their religion and are demanding the school adheres to their religious belief and way of life.
Did you actually watch the video? It was also reported Christian and Jewish groups were also helping or maybe you Muslim dislike overshadow in comparison to Christians and Jews who are acting on the same thing as in demanding a change in the school.
The point I have made more than fkn once now is that it is MUSLIMS that are demanding THEIR islamic laws be upheld in a free western liberal society.
What should we do about it? Try and actually tell me what to do instead of doing what you always do which is have the courage to lay out the problem but to much of a coward to say what to do about it as in prevent it occurring.
the hypocray from the left and the homosexual community has been nothing short of astounding.
A right winger. Now I even think less of you.
I am not a fence sitter you nobhead.
Preach from a moral authority but when it comes to action you are still sitting on the fence. Who would have known the person furiated about the problem doesn't actually have a solution. What a waste of time.
There are fkn laws in this country that ALL residents must adhere to.
What laws did they break?
In this case the law should be upheld and those threats of murder and rape should be thoroughly investigated by the police. But just like Rotherham and HUNDREDS of other places throughout the UK these allegations will be swept under the carpet as if nothing happened and you will not hear a damn thing ever again about them. I hope that covers it.
Maybe just maybe like the Rotherham case they are do it in private. They are upholding the law. It is not like the US where I think majority of court cases are public. It is the UK and they choose to make the Rotherham case to done in a private court. If you have a problem protest for public trails so that your buddy Tommy Robinson doesn't get jailed for being an idiot like what he did was confront the very people who were in the trial. Under no circumstances was Tommy allowed to influence the decision. He was there and as a prominent figure he had a duty to remain as distant as possible instead of doing what he did which was not keep his distance and caused an altercation. Doubtful you don't like Tommy because you have admitted you are a right winger and dislike Muslims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
By defaulting to a negative, I mean it can become a positive. We mostly just shouldn't create new people out of boredom.
Do you have an example where a negative can become a positive?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
I wanted DA users opinion. I am not arguing against someone's position more so asking for it.I think this thread belongs in a different forum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I'd like to spend a lot more time on it.
I think the answers would be rather simple. Following these questions that is:
Is life worth living weighing the positive and negative aspect of it?
Should we ought to carry on living given the findings above?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Ben Shapiro thinks he is smart which is all that is needed to be over-confident. Something to be confident about even if it is delusion.
Whether it be how unintelligent he is at Religion.
How unintelligent he is at climate change.
How unintelligent he is at what would help increase wages.
How unintelligent he is a trans-gender related topics.
How unintelligent he is at foreign policy.
More but I'll leave it at that. If you want links I'll give more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Why ought we?I think that bringing people in the world is something humanity ought to do to expand our species.
Remember there is no right or wrong simply things we decide to value.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
My instinct is that it's probably wrong. I don't worry over much about what I can prove, in the sense that I'd have to think very long and hard before I go against my instinct that life is worth living!I treat it as a challenge - to come up with a counter-argument. Just thinkig about it will be a useful exercise, but I don't see it aecting my 'real life'.
Can you base it not on your instinct more so a rationale?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
This is suggesting Islam is not peaceful.
Islam under the definition of peaceful: without violence (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/peaceful) is not peaceful.
So after three and in your own words tell us why it is that I "should be disliking islam"?
I have said it and clarified again. I actually try to clarify what instead of not caring about my grammar like you.
Not according to the "organiser" who says he has "relatives at the school". This not the only school that muslims are protesting at either.
My claim was that the organizer does not even have children in the school. You didn't rebut that. Then you committed a whataboutism instead of addressing what I said. You sure you are here to have a discussion instead of having a rant?
and is all irrelevant. The point is that MUSLIMS are demanding that a Head Teacher and her staff should stop teaching what they have been told to teach and what will be compulsory to teach in the very near future. They have received death threats and threats of rape.
From a miniority even if we specifically target to how many parents came and how many parents have children in that school. Should we know hate all Muslims because of a minority now? Don't be a fence sitter and act like there is bad but when you have to act upon bad you aren't going to do something about it. So what do we do about it? Please do answer so I understand what you want to happen.
No, that is you fkn problem if you cannot keep up .
The problem wasn't me not keeping up the problem was you simply denying what you are implying by what you say. Just focus on other things I said here if you want a discussion instead of acting irrational.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I wasn't speaking about the consequences more so do you take the position we should act on it?I don't think it is a philosophical position anyone really holds because the logical consequence would seem to be to commit suicide immediately!
Created:
Posted in:
This thread, created by keith prosser is about "no go areas". He started this thread with a quote,:my quote, go and see for yourself then you will get the CONTEXT,
And you used an anecdote to state your reasoning behind their being "no go areas". If it wasn't then stop fence sitting and tell me whether you do or do not think there are "no go areas".
My first post was in context to prossers comments AFTER he had quoted me.I mention muslims in CONTEXT of the thread created by prosser. I have said when muslims become great in number, they start demanding change to their own way of living. The mail is one of a few example of muslims, YES MUSLIM demanding change once they become large in population until they claim an whole area as "their own" and make it clear to all non muslims that they are not welcome in "THEIR AREA". It is true and it is fact.
You have pretty much stated how a "no go area" can exist. Care to provide evidence for it?
Are you suggesting that the "hate mail" asking/ordering a owner of a food outlet to remove the word "pig" from the name of her outlet wasn't sent by anyone of the 90% muslim community? It appears that the woman had no problems over the last year and a half since she started her business. Are you suggesting that this mail came from what appears to be the remaining 10% of the population. Listen, you buffon, there are hundreds of food outlets including restaurants and pubs in the uk that have all kinds of animal names and this is the first time to my knowledge that one has been asked/ ordered to change part,parts or all of its name with or without a cavete attached.
I can think of a diffferent community that can "hate mail" as in vegans. With this mind since there are two conclusions you require evidence for it to be Muslims. If Muslims were the only community to send "hate mail" then it would be fine from what you said but I have thought about another.
Muslims are protesting in Birmingham demanding that lessons in homsexualtiy not be taught to their children " because one cannot be homsexual and muslim". These teachers have had death threats and threats of rape made against them by MUSLIMS!!!!! these teachers are not turning up for work for fear of being assaulted and or killed by these MUSLIM protesters. i.e. they are demanding another was of living. On this issue I happen to agree with the MUSLIMS, but not because it has anything to do with their religion, but because I am totally against these homosexual lessons being taught to very young primary school children. Will you be calling me a "homophobe" ?
If you actually knew what was going on. Most of the mothers and fathers weren't protesting and this event was hosted by someone who has no children even attending the school. Here is a video for you know the information you are lacking:
I also mention Muslims in context with the "no go areas" claim. And the simple reason I have done this is because IT IS FKN MUSLIMS WHO ARE MAKING THE CLAIM THAT CERTAIN AREAS ARE "THEIR OWN".
Why aren't you admitting you are problem are with Muslims? You are clearly not making the distinction and yes you do in every instance of talking about something require to make it clear in what you ate talking about.
And that is why I have mentioned muslims. No go away unless you have some other crackpot accusation of racism, "islamophobia" or bigotry to put to me.
Don't care just came here to state what you have already admitted if you don't think you did. That is your problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Under the assumption you value life would be the simple on.Would you be so kind to explain to prosser and anyone interested, why it is that I " should be disliking Islam".
Are you saying it wasn't from the 90% muslim community asking for the word "pig" to be removed from a food outlets name.
You can't stop this can you? I would like evidence for before I consider this unintentional way of not doing what you have a problem with which is:
It is Islam I have a problem with and not muslims per se.
What?
It hasn't been proven yet I agree. But will we ever get the results of the police investigation? I doubt it, unless of course it was sent by a white far right supporter and then it will be all over ever fkn media outlet in the world, won't it.
Now you are on about a conspiracy theory.
Listen, there hundreds of food outlets including restaurants and pubs that have quirky animal names including pigs.This is first time TO MY KNOWLEDGE that a food outlet has been asked or ordered to remove part or parts or all of it's name by "community" that is 90% muslim. AND, with sly and veiled caveat.
How were they asked? By force? Do you have evidence of how this specific example was asked?
Created: