FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Party of Islam
Party of Islam
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Well I'm pretty sure that just like Christians and other faiths not all Muslims are going to have the same political views. The problem seems to be when it turns from faith to fanaticism then their opinion is the only opinion. I'm sure a Islam only political party will appeal to many but I see this as no different from having a party that allows people of only a certain colour, their policies and views are only for those who are applicable. I'd imagine all parties involved will lose a few voters to this party as they possibly don't feel represented but I can't see them being a danger to labour or conservative,at the moment. But with the Muslim population growing all the time I'd worry that a party based on religion rather than politics could be dangerous. " I appreciate that not all Muslims will have the same political views but Muslim Census says the following: In the 2019 Election, our participants voted: 71% – Labour 12% – Did not vote 9% – Conservatives 2.5% – Liberal Democrats 2% – Green Party 1.6% – SNP 1.2% – Independent 0.7% – Other If there were an election tomorrow, our participants responded: 40% – Will not vote 21% – Independent 17% – Green Party 10% – Liberal Democrat 4.9% – SNP 4.8% – Labour 0.6% – Conservative 3.5% – Other They cite Labour's stance on Israel-Palestine as the reason for the dramatic fall in Labour support. With a new Party of Islam being approved will see a lot of Muslims get behind the party? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Well I'm pretty sure that just like Christians and other faiths not all Muslims are going to have the same political views. The problem seems to be when it turns from faith to fanaticism then their opinion is the only opinion. I'm sure a Islam only political party will appeal to many but I see this as no different from having a party that allows people of only a certain colour, their policies and views are only for those who are applicable. I'd imagine all parties involved will lose a few voters to this party as they possibly don't feel represented but I can't see them being a danger to labour or conservative,at the moment. But with the Muslim population growing all the time I'd worry that a party based on religion rather than politics could be dangerous. I appreciate that not all Muslims will have the same political views but Muslim Census says the following: In the 2019 Election, our participants voted: 71% – Labour 12% – Did not vote 9% – Conservatives 2.5% – Liberal Democrats 2% – Green Party 1.6% – SNP 1.2% – Independent 0.7% – Other If there were an election tomorrow, our participants responded: 40% – Will not vote 21% – Independent 17% – Green Party 10% – Liberal Democrat 4.9% – SNP 4.8% – Labour 0.6% – Conservative 3.5% – Other They cite Labour's stance on Israel-Palestine as the reason for the dramatic fall in Labour support. With a new Party of Islam being approved will see a lot of Muslims get behind the party?" I'm not sure what Labour's stance is as they seem to be arguing amongst themselves on this. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Well I'm pretty sure that just like Christians and other faiths not all Muslims are going to have the same political views. The problem seems to be when it turns from faith to fanaticism then their opinion is the only opinion. I'm sure a Islam only political party will appeal to many but I see this as no different from having a party that allows people of only a certain colour, their policies and views are only for those who are applicable. I'd imagine all parties involved will lose a few voters to this party as they possibly don't feel represented but I can't see them being a danger to labour or conservative,at the moment. But with the Muslim population growing all the time I'd worry that a party based on religion rather than politics could be dangerous. I appreciate that not all Muslims will have the same political views but Muslim Census says the following: In the 2019 Election, our participants voted: 71% – Labour 12% – Did not vote 9% – Conservatives 2.5% – Liberal Democrats 2% – Green Party 1.6% – SNP 1.2% – Independent 0.7% – Other If there were an election tomorrow, our participants responded: 40% – Will not vote 21% – Independent 17% – Green Party 10% – Liberal Democrat 4.9% – SNP 4.8% – Labour 0.6% – Conservative 3.5% – Other They cite Labour's stance on Israel-Palestine as the reason for the dramatic fall in Labour support. With a new Party of Islam being approved will see a lot of Muslims get behind the party? I'm not sure what Labour's stance is as they seem to be arguing amongst themselves on this. " The official party line is to support the arms trade, sorry, Israel. But they won't kick out party members who suggest that mass murdering women and children is a suboptimal approach. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" But with the Muslim population growing all the time I'd worry that a party based on religion rather than politics could be dangerous. " By 2055, based on current trajectory Muslim birth rate projected to be the majority, by the end of this century the largest faith on the planet. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/04/05/the-changing-global-religious-landscape/ | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Thin edge of the wedge, We are a secular country and should keep religion out of politics and governance. The fact that an Islamic Party is being formed is troubling." Even if they start winning a few seats in election, I will move out of the country. A country with an Islamic party having serious political power is definitely not the kind of hell I want to live in. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Well I'm pretty sure that just like Christians and other faiths not all Muslims are going to have the same political views. The problem seems to be when it turns from faith to fanaticism then their opinion is the only opinion. I'm sure a Islam only political party will appeal to many but I see this as no different from having a party that allows people of only a certain colour, their policies and views are only for those who are applicable. I'd imagine all parties involved will lose a few voters to this party as they possibly don't feel represented but I can't see them being a danger to labour or conservative,at the moment. But with the Muslim population growing all the time I'd worry that a party based on religion rather than politics could be dangerous. I appreciate that not all Muslims will have the same political views but Muslim Census says the following: In the 2019 Election, our participants voted: 71% – Labour 12% – Did not vote 9% – Conservatives 2.5% – Liberal Democrats 2% – Green Party 1.6% – SNP 1.2% – Independent 0.7% – Other If there were an election tomorrow, our participants responded: 40% – Will not vote 21% – Independent 17% – Green Party 10% – Liberal Democrat 4.9% – SNP 4.8% – Labour 0.6% – Conservative 3.5% – Other They cite Labour's stance on Israel-Palestine as the reason for the dramatic fall in Labour support. With a new Party of Islam being approved will see a lot of Muslims get behind the party? I'm not sure what Labour's stance is as they seem to be arguing amongst themselves on this. The official party line is to support the arms trade, sorry, Israel. But they won't kick out party members who suggest that mass murdering women and children is a suboptimal approach. " They don't have to lick them out as quite a few councillors have quit. I think in some cases it has caused them to loose overall control in council's | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Thin edge of the wedge, We are a secular country and should keep religion out of politics and governance. The fact that an Islamic Party is being formed is troubling." That is true… but for example how many times have we heard the Conservative Party wanting to stand up for Christian values…. I use to say that one policy parties didn’t work, but farage killed that idea | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Thin edge of the wedge, We are a secular country and should keep religion out of politics and governance." The UK isn't a secular country. The Head of State is also the head of the established church, and there are 26 bishops sitting in the House of Lords as the 'Lords Spiritual'. Having said that, the UK doesn't act like a religious country, for which I'm very grateful. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Thin edge of the wedge, We are a secular country and should keep religion out of politics and governance. The fact that an Islamic Party is being formed is troubling." Actually just had a thought…. Wasn’t there a push to get a woman’s party going a few years ago? Is one based on gender as bad in principle one based on religion! Remember we do have political parties where their principal narrative is race.. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Thin edge of the wedge, We are a secular country and should keep religion out of politics and governance. The fact that an Islamic Party is being formed is troubling. Actually just had a thought…. Wasn’t there a push to get a woman’s party going a few years ago? Is one based on gender as bad in principle one based on religion! Remember we do have political parties where their principal narrative is race.." Depends on what they ask for. If the women's party is about female rights instead of female supremacy, I wouldn't call it as bad though a gender based political party isn't as bad. But a party based on Islamic ideals is definitely much worse. We already had Labour MP Naz Shah openly asking for blasphemy laws in UK. Definitely not the route I would like the country to take. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Thin edge of the wedge, We are a secular country and should keep religion out of politics and governance. The UK isn't a secular country. The Head of State is also the head of the established church, and there are 26 bishops sitting in the House of Lords as the 'Lords Spiritual'. Having said that, the UK doesn't act like a religious country, for which I'm very grateful." JRM votes against gay rights every time because he thinks the specific god he believes in would want him too. Religion is fine to help individuals make personal choices. Like what hat to wear. But should have zero bearing on politics or anything that impacts public life. We need to move towards a scientific, information based decision making. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"We need to move towards a scientific, information based decision making." The Nazis and the Soviets both thought they'd achieved that. Perhaps we need a balance of science, belief and common sense/pragmatism, with an overarching general love of humanity. More important than being right is tolerating those we believe to be wrong. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"We need to move towards a scientific, information based decision making. The Nazis and the Soviets both thought they'd achieved that. Perhaps we need a balance of science, belief and common sense/pragmatism, with an overarching general love of humanity. More important than being right is tolerating those we believe to be wrong." We have too much belief and not enough science in politics at the moment. Climate change is an example of that at play. It could be argued that "belief" was at play with the Nazis. They believed they were a superior race. Not a scientific principle. Personal religious freedom is important though. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Is there any real difference between this for example and the political parties in Northern Ireland which also runs down the lines of religion " I think so, although there are similarities. Policies based on religion, such as abortion. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Is there any real difference between this for example and the political parties in Northern Ireland which also runs down the lines of religion I think so, although there are similarities. Policies based on religion, such as abortion. " And that has worked well for them no trouble at all  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It could be argued that "belief" was at play with the Nazis. They believed they were a superior race. Not a scientific principle." Exactly - science has the potential for abuse, whilst lending a misguided or abhorrent belief (religious, nationalist or otherwise) legitimacy. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It could be argued that "belief" was at play with the Nazis. They believed they were a superior race. Not a scientific principle. Exactly - science has the potential for abuse, whilst lending a misguided or abhorrent belief (religious, nationalist or otherwise) legitimacy." Their belief that they were the master race wasn't science based. It was belief based. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Their belief that they were the master race wasn't science based. It was belief based." Exactly. Then they promoted scientists who agreed with them and locked up those who disagreed, presenting their belief as scientific truth. They probably even succeeded in deluding themselves that they were being scientific. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Their belief that they were the master race wasn't science based. It was belief based. Exactly. Then they promoted scientists who agreed with them and locked up those who disagreed, presenting their belief as scientific truth. They probably even succeeded in deluding themselves that they were being scientific." Probably they did. "Scientists that agree with them" is not science. And it's basically what we have now with the likes of GBnews digging out scientists (funded by the oil industry) that agree with them that climate science isn't real. My opinion is we need to move away from anything belief based as a decision making tool, and go back to verifiable, real life information. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Their belief that they were the master race wasn't science based. It was belief based. Exactly. Then they promoted scientists who agreed with them and locked up those who disagreed, presenting their belief as scientific truth. They probably even succeeded in deluding themselves that they were being scientific. Probably they did. "Scientists that agree with them" is not science. And it's basically what we have now with the likes of GBnews digging out scientists (funded by the oil industry) that agree with them that climate science isn't real. My opinion is we need to move away from anything belief based as a decision making tool, and go back to verifiable, real life information. " Science is science. To say that because you don't agree with a particular, that science isn't science is bollocks. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Science is science. To say that because you don't agree with a particular, that science isn't science is bollocks. " Science, as a basis for government, is a pretty scary thought. And decisions will always be underpinned by a philosophy. We're not talking round Earth vs flat Earth here, we're talking "should we kill cripples and old people" because it's more efficient and makes room for more productive people? As soon as we say "no, that's horrible" we're departing from "science" and entering philosophy. That philosophy will be subjective. Science might then a way of distancing the philosophy from the actions. We see this vividly in decisions made by NICE - who will live, who will die, who will get medication, who will not. Of course in this instance the science is arguably a good thing. It isn't always, though. The only thing that can work is humanity + a "good philosophy" (whatever that means). | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Science is science. To say that because you don't agree with a particular, that science isn't science is bollocks. Science, as a basis for government, is a pretty scary thought. And decisions will always be underpinned by a philosophy. We're not talking round Earth vs flat Earth here, we're talking "should we kill cripples and old people" because it's more efficient and makes room for more productive people? As soon as we say "no, that's horrible" we're departing from "science" and entering philosophy. That philosophy will be subjective. Science might then a way of distancing the philosophy from the actions. We see this vividly in decisions made by NICE - who will live, who will die, who will get medication, who will not. Of course in this instance the science is arguably a good thing. It isn't always, though. The only thing that can work is humanity + a "good philosophy" (whatever that means)." I'm not agreeing that we should be using science as a governing policy. In fact, I personally think that purely following science is a ridiculous thought. But for that poster to say 'science which agrees with government isn't science' is bollocks. If you only see science that you agree with as 'real science', I suggest you're as bad as the flat earthers you ridicule (not aimed at you personally). | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Science is science. To say that because you don't agree with a particular, that science isn't science is bollocks. Science, as a basis for government, is a pretty scary thought. And decisions will always be underpinned by a philosophy. We're not talking round Earth vs flat Earth here, we're talking "should we kill cripples and old people" because it's more efficient and makes room for more productive people? As soon as we say "no, that's horrible" we're departing from "science" and entering philosophy. That philosophy will be subjective. Science might then a way of distancing the philosophy from the actions. We see this vividly in decisions made by NICE - who will live, who will die, who will get medication, who will not. Of course in this instance the science is arguably a good thing. It isn't always, though. The only thing that can work is humanity + a "good philosophy" (whatever that means)." Well clearly we need human morality. Not just science. The point is, government is supposed to be here to serve the people of the country, and the decisions need to be made based on real life information, IE science. In 2016, Irish politician Danny Healy-Rae in their parliament said “God above is in charge of the weather and we here can't do anything about it". We need less of that kind of nonsense. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Science is science. To say that because you don't agree with a particular, that science isn't science is bollocks. Science, as a basis for government, is a pretty scary thought. And decisions will always be underpinned by a philosophy. We're not talking round Earth vs flat Earth here, we're talking "should we kill cripples and old people" because it's more efficient and makes room for more productive people? As soon as we say "no, that's horrible" we're departing from "science" and entering philosophy. That philosophy will be subjective. Science might then a way of distancing the philosophy from the actions. We see this vividly in decisions made by NICE - who will live, who will die, who will get medication, who will not. Of course in this instance the science is arguably a good thing. It isn't always, though. The only thing that can work is humanity + a "good philosophy" (whatever that means). Well clearly we need human morality. Not just science. The point is, government is supposed to be here to serve the people of the country, and the decisions need to be made based on real life information, IE science. In 2016, Irish politician Danny Healy-Rae in their parliament said “God above is in charge of the weather and we here can't do anything about it". We need less of that kind of nonsense. " "Careful now" "Down with this sort of thing" | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Science is science. To say that because you don't agree with a particular, that science isn't science is bollocks. Science, as a basis for government, is a pretty scary thought. And decisions will always be underpinned by a philosophy. We're not talking round Earth vs flat Earth here, we're talking "should we kill cripples and old people" because it's more efficient and makes room for more productive people? As soon as we say "no, that's horrible" we're departing from "science" and entering philosophy. That philosophy will be subjective. Science might then a way of distancing the philosophy from the actions. We see this vividly in decisions made by NICE - who will live, who will die, who will get medication, who will not. Of course in this instance the science is arguably a good thing. It isn't always, though. The only thing that can work is humanity + a "good philosophy" (whatever that means). Well clearly we need human morality. Not just science. The point is, government is supposed to be here to serve the people of the country, and the decisions need to be made based on real life information, IE science. In 2016, Irish politician Danny Healy-Rae in their parliament said “God above is in charge of the weather and we here can't do anything about it". We need less of that kind of nonsense. "Careful now" "Down with this sort of thing"" 3 | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Earth is in total control of her own weather and there is absolutely NOTHING we mortals can do to change that fact. To even think we can (control weather) is beyond nonsense, it's ridiculous....!" We all know which religion really controls the weather... At least according to the politicians Trayon White & Marjorie Taylor Greene. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Earth is in total control of her own weather and there is absolutely NOTHING we mortals can do to change that fact. To even think we can (control weather) is beyond nonsense, it's ridiculous....! We all know which religion really controls the weather... At least according to the politicians Trayon White & Marjorie Taylor Greene." Excellent examples of the kind of batshit crazy bollocks that people in power believe over real life information. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I have to agree with most posters. A party founded and based on religion is a dangerous thing. We have many historical records to back this up. We also have the Israel-Palestine long drawn out conflict to back that up as well. Blair and Bush banged on about God whilst invading two sovereign countries. It's simply dangerous." | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Science is science. To say that because you don't agree with a particular, that science isn't science is bollocks. Science, as a basis for government, is a pretty scary thought. And decisions will always be underpinned by a philosophy. We're not talking round Earth vs flat Earth here, we're talking "should we kill cripples and old people" because it's more efficient and makes room for more productive people? As soon as we say "no, that's horrible" we're departing from "science" and entering philosophy. That philosophy will be subjective. Science might then a way of distancing the philosophy from the actions. We see this vividly in decisions made by NICE - who will live, who will die, who will get medication, who will not. Of course in this instance the science is arguably a good thing. It isn't always, though. The only thing that can work is humanity + a "good philosophy" (whatever that means)." Agree with you that governance has a lot to do with moral philosophy than with science. Moral philosophy tells us what we want in the form of priorities. But science/analytics tells us whether we can achieve what we want and if we can achieve it, the way to achieve it and the sacrifices we need to make to achieve it. But governments bending science to achieve their will is different. It happens when scientific institutions are not free from government control. Moral philosophy varies from country to country and they all respond differently to different situations. This is why the dream of a world government with a universal code of morality will always be that - a dream. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Science is science. To say that because you don't agree with a particular, that science isn't science is bollocks. Science, as a basis for government, is a pretty scary thought. And decisions will always be underpinned by a philosophy. We're not talking round Earth vs flat Earth here, we're talking "should we kill cripples and old people" because it's more efficient and makes room for more productive people? As soon as we say "no, that's horrible" we're departing from "science" and entering philosophy. That philosophy will be subjective. Science might then a way of distancing the philosophy from the actions. We see this vividly in decisions made by NICE - who will live, who will die, who will get medication, who will not. Of course in this instance the science is arguably a good thing. It isn't always, though. The only thing that can work is humanity + a "good philosophy" (whatever that means). Agree with you that governance has a lot to do with moral philosophy than with science. Moral philosophy tells us what we want in the form of priorities. But science/analytics tells us whether we can achieve what we want and if we can achieve it, the way to achieve it and the sacrifices we need to make to achieve it. But governments bending science to achieve their will is different. It happens when scientific institutions are not free from government control. Moral philosophy varies from country to country and they all respond differently to different situations. This is why the dream of a world government with a universal code of morality will always be that - a dream." Name an Islamic government with morality values close to British values | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Science is science. To say that because you don't agree with a particular, that science isn't science is bollocks. Science, as a basis for government, is a pretty scary thought. And decisions will always be underpinned by a philosophy. We're not talking round Earth vs flat Earth here, we're talking "should we kill cripples and old people" because it's more efficient and makes room for more productive people? As soon as we say "no, that's horrible" we're departing from "science" and entering philosophy. That philosophy will be subjective. Science might then a way of distancing the philosophy from the actions. We see this vividly in decisions made by NICE - who will live, who will die, who will get medication, who will not. Of course in this instance the science is arguably a good thing. It isn't always, though. The only thing that can work is humanity + a "good philosophy" (whatever that means). Agree with you that governance has a lot to do with moral philosophy than with science. Moral philosophy tells us what we want in the form of priorities. But science/analytics tells us whether we can achieve what we want and if we can achieve it, the way to achieve it and the sacrifices we need to make to achieve it. But governments bending science to achieve their will is different. It happens when scientific institutions are not free from government control. Moral philosophy varies from country to country and they all respond differently to different situations. This is why the dream of a world government with a universal code of morality will always be that - a dream. Name an Islamic government with morality values close to British values" That's exactly what I am saying. Different cultures have different moral values. I personally prefer the current Western moral system and would leave the country the moment an Islamic party becomes powerful. Science only helps governments achieve what they want. Science doesn't give us morality. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Different cultures have different moral values. I personally prefer the current Western moral system and would leave the country the moment an Islamic party becomes powerful. Science only helps governments achieve what they want. Science doesn't give us morality." What could possibly go wrong with an Islamic party gaining traction in a western country? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/17/hamtramck-michigan-muslim-council-lgbtq-pride-flags-banned | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Science is science. To say that because you don't agree with a particular, that science isn't science is bollocks. Science, as a basis for government, is a pretty scary thought. And decisions will always be underpinned by a philosophy. We're not talking round Earth vs flat Earth here, we're talking "should we kill cripples and old people" because it's more efficient and makes room for more productive people? As soon as we say "no, that's horrible" we're departing from "science" and entering philosophy. That philosophy will be subjective. Science might then a way of distancing the philosophy from the actions. We see this vividly in decisions made by NICE - who will live, who will die, who will get medication, who will not. Of course in this instance the science is arguably a good thing. It isn't always, though. The only thing that can work is humanity + a "good philosophy" (whatever that means). Agree with you that governance has a lot to do with moral philosophy than with science. Moral philosophy tells us what we want in the form of priorities. But science/analytics tells us whether we can achieve what we want and if we can achieve it, the way to achieve it and the sacrifices we need to make to achieve it. But governments bending science to achieve their will is different. It happens when scientific institutions are not free from government control. Moral philosophy varies from country to country and they all respond differently to different situations. This is why the dream of a world government with a universal code of morality will always be that - a dream. Name an Islamic government with morality values close to British values" To do that you have to define "British Values". Which is impossible. One person's answer will be completely different to the next. Don't forget nearly 4 million British people are Muslims. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Their belief that they were the master race wasn't science based. It was belief based. Exactly. Then they promoted scientists who agreed with them and locked up those who disagreed, presenting their belief as scientific truth. They probably even succeeded in deluding themselves that they were being scientific. Probably they did. "Scientists that agree with them" is not science. And it's basically what we have now with the likes of GBnews digging out scientists (funded by the oil industry) that agree with them that climate science isn't real. My opinion is we need to move away from anything belief based as a decision making tool, and go back to verifiable, real life information. " So a qualified experienced scientist you don't agree with is not a scientist? The GB news scientists are not funded by the oil industry,they are independents.Who are the climate change 'scientist' funded by? And who funds the 'scientists' the BBC wheeled out during COVID? Example,the laughably titled professor Neil Ferguson who only knows one number,half a million,a man with over 20 years experience of being wrong about every virus,from Foot and Mouth to SARS,funded by the pharmaceutical industry. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Their belief that they were the master race wasn't science based. It was belief based. Exactly. Then they promoted scientists who agreed with them and locked up those who disagreed, presenting their belief as scientific truth. They probably even succeeded in deluding themselves that they were being scientific. Probably they did. "Scientists that agree with them" is not science. And it's basically what we have now with the likes of GBnews digging out scientists (funded by the oil industry) that agree with them that climate science isn't real. My opinion is we need to move away from anything belief based as a decision making tool, and go back to verifiable, real life information. So a qualified experienced scientist you don't agree with is not a scientist? " No, where on earth do you get this idea from? " The GB news scientists are not funded by the oil industry,they are independents. " I don't know who all their "scientists" are. But they've had some cranks funded by the fossil fuels industry on for sure " Who are the climate change 'scientist' funded by? " There's literally thousands of them, funded by universities, NASA, different agencies and all kinds of different funding world wide. What kind of question is this? " And who funds the 'scientists' the BBC wheeled out during COVID? Example,the laughably titled professor Neil Ferguson who only knows one number,half a million,a man with over 20 years experience of being wrong about every virus,from Foot and Mouth to SARS,funded by the pharmaceutical industry." Not sure what this bit at the end has to do with anything? Science itself has no agenda. It's simply " the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained." | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Different cultures have different moral values. I personally prefer the current Western moral system and would leave the country the moment an Islamic party becomes powerful. Science only helps governments achieve what they want. Science doesn't give us morality. What could possibly go wrong with an Islamic party gaining traction in a western country? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/17/hamtramck-michigan-muslim-council-lgbtq-pride-flags-banned" You should have seen the anti-LGBT protests in Canada | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" Name an Islamic government with morality values close to British values To do that you have to define "British Values". Which is impossible. One person's answer will be completely different to the next. Don't forget nearly 4 million British people are Muslims. "Not sure what British values are, specifically. But many Western liberal values are opposite to Islamic values. One clear example is freedom of expression, which has taken a hit all over Europe, thanks to Islamic immigration. US is probably the only country that has managed to maintain it, thanks to the first amendment. Sweden is fighting hard. Not sure how long they will be able to keep those rights, given the recent terror attack. Denmark already gave up and are passing laws to ban insults to religions. I don't even want to talk about the situation in UK. The Batley school teacher incident, Wakefield child incident, Cinemas taking down Lady of Heaven film and the list goes on. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It’s inevitable that eventually the UK and much of Europe will become Islamic. It’s just demographics. The irony of course is that the Western liberals who have been so keen on bringing about this end and all of their pet causes will get wiped out. " Turkeys voting for xmas, does spring to mind when I see some of the groups that protest in favour of people and countries that have a religious upbringing that does not tolerate their lifestyle choices... | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It’s inevitable that eventually the UK and much of Europe will become Islamic. It’s just demographics. The irony of course is that the Western liberals who have been so keen on bringing about this end and all of their pet causes will get wiped out. Turkeys voting for xmas, does spring to mind when I see some of the groups that protest in favour of people and countries that have a religious upbringing that does not tolerate their lifestyle choices..." Do you have an example of the "lifestyle choices" that you are referring to? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It’s inevitable that eventually the UK and much of Europe will become Islamic. It’s just demographics. The irony of course is that the Western liberals who have been so keen on bringing about this end and all of their pet causes will get wiped out. Turkeys voting for xmas, does spring to mind when I see some of the groups that protest in favour of people and countries that have a religious upbringing that does not tolerate their lifestyle choices... Do you have an example of the "lifestyle choices" that you are referring to?" Probably referring to issues of sexual preference, identity and Liberal attitudes. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Do you have an example of the "lifestyle choices" that you are referring to?" The existence of this website? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It’s inevitable that eventually the UK and much of Europe will become Islamic. It’s just demographics. The irony of course is that the Western liberals who have been so keen on bringing about this end and all of their pet causes will get wiped out. Turkeys voting for xmas, does spring to mind when I see some of the groups that protest in favour of people and countries that have a religious upbringing that does not tolerate their lifestyle choices... Do you have an example of the "lifestyle choices" that you are referring to?" Literally hundreds of examples, you know that though, surely? Or are you trying to play “gotcha” | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It’s inevitable that eventually the UK and much of Europe will become Islamic. It’s just demographics. The irony of course is that the Western liberals who have been so keen on bringing about this end and all of their pet causes will get wiped out. Turkeys voting for xmas, does spring to mind when I see some of the groups that protest in favour of people and countries that have a religious upbringing that does not tolerate their lifestyle choices... Do you have an example of the "lifestyle choices" that you are referring to? Literally hundreds of examples, you know that though, surely? Or are you trying to play “gotcha”" No, just wondering what you mean. But if you prefer to have a pop at me instead of answering. That's fine, we can just leave it without knowing what you mean. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"And we have Christian bishops in the house of Lords, Britain certainly is not a secular country and some religions retain a formal role." Like the monarchy, the country tolerates them because it's safe to ignore and laugh at them. Should they really start throwing their weight around or should blasphemy/anti-royalist sentiment become legislated against and be properly enforced, their days would be sharply numbered. If a majority of the country wanted to vote in a party that proscribed blasphemy, there would be a civil war. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It’s inevitable that eventually the UK and much of Europe will become Islamic. It’s just demographics. The irony of course is that the Western liberals who have been so keen on bringing about this end and all of their pet causes will get wiped out. Turkeys voting for xmas, does spring to mind when I see some of the groups that protest in favour of people and countries that have a religious upbringing that does not tolerate their lifestyle choices... Do you have an example of the "lifestyle choices" that you are referring to? Literally hundreds of examples, you know that though, surely? Or are you trying to play “gotcha” No, just wondering what you mean. But if you prefer to have a pop at me instead of answering. That's fine, we can just leave it without knowing what you mean. " There are 12 countries in the world which have capital punishment for homosexuals, 11 of which are Islamic. Most people there agree with it because that's what the religion reaches them. When we did a survey in 2016, over 50% of British Muslims said they wanted homosexuality to be illegal. This site wouldn't exist if we are going to follow Islamic cultural values. I am pretty sure most people understand which lifestyle choices are incompatible with Islam. Not to mention, other liberal values like freedom of expression. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It’s inevitable that eventually the UK and much of Europe will become Islamic. It’s just demographics. The irony of course is that the Western liberals who have been so keen on bringing about this end and all of their pet causes will get wiped out. Turkeys voting for xmas, does spring to mind when I see some of the groups that protest in favour of people and countries that have a religious upbringing that does not tolerate their lifestyle choices... Do you have an example of the "lifestyle choices" that you are referring to? Literally hundreds of examples, you know that though, surely? Or are you trying to play “gotcha” No, just wondering what you mean. But if you prefer to have a pop at me instead of answering. That's fine, we can just leave it without knowing what you mean. There are 12 countries in the world which have capital punishment for homosexuals, 11 of which are Islamic. Most people there agree with it because that's what the religion reaches them. When we did a survey in 2016, over 50% of British Muslims said they wanted homosexuality to be illegal. This site wouldn't exist if we are going to follow Islamic cultural values. I am pretty sure most people understand which lifestyle choices are incompatible with Islam. Not to mention, other liberal values like freedom of expression." Out of 50 Muslim majority countries. Still, people don't let that stand in the way of their prejudice. I've no idea what any of this has got to do with the OP, does this political party stand a chance of gaining power and putting these principles into practice? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It’s inevitable that eventually the UK and much of Europe will become Islamic. It’s just demographics. The irony of course is that the Western liberals who have been so keen on bringing about this end and all of their pet causes will get wiped out. Turkeys voting for xmas, does spring to mind when I see some of the groups that protest in favour of people and countries that have a religious upbringing that does not tolerate their lifestyle choices... Do you have an example of the "lifestyle choices" that you are referring to? Literally hundreds of examples, you know that though, surely? Or are you trying to play “gotcha” No, just wondering what you mean. But if you prefer to have a pop at me instead of answering. That's fine, we can just leave it without knowing what you mean. There are 12 countries in the world which have capital punishment for homosexuals, 11 of which are Islamic. Most people there agree with it because that's what the religion reaches them. When we did a survey in 2016, over 50% of British Muslims said they wanted homosexuality to be illegal. This site wouldn't exist if we are going to follow Islamic cultural values. I am pretty sure most people understand which lifestyle choices are incompatible with Islam. Not to mention, other liberal values like freedom of expression. Out of 50 Muslim majority countries. Still, people don't let that stand in the way of their prejudice. I've no idea what any of this has got to do with the OP, does this political party stand a chance of gaining power and putting these principles into practice?" 11 of them have capital punishment. Most other countries have other kinds of punishments ranging from fines to life imprisonment. Less than 10 countries of them have legal status for sexual intercourse between homosexuals. Most of them are countries where the religion is not seriously practiced, like Kosovo and Turkey. I personally know of a Turkish gay guy who moved to UK because he is scared of the level of Islamic immigration in Turkey and as an ex-Muslim, he believes that Gay rights will not survive in an Islamic nation. But don't let any of these facts get into your way of love for the religion of peace. As for why it's related to the post, if you allow more and more immigration of people with views like this. They will develop enough political power to actually make changes. Naz Shah asking for blasphemy laws, an Islamic party trying to participate in the elections are symptoms of what would happen. Over 50% or Muslims on UK wanted to make homosexuality illegal. What exactly do you think will happen in the long term? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It’s inevitable that eventually the UK and much of Europe will become Islamic. It’s just demographics. The irony of course is that the Western liberals who have been so keen on bringing about this end and all of their pet causes will get wiped out. Turkeys voting for xmas, does spring to mind when I see some of the groups that protest in favour of people and countries that have a religious upbringing that does not tolerate their lifestyle choices... Do you have an example of the "lifestyle choices" that you are referring to? Literally hundreds of examples, you know that though, surely? Or are you trying to play “gotcha” No, just wondering what you mean. But if you prefer to have a pop at me instead of answering. That's fine, we can just leave it without knowing what you mean. There are 12 countries in the world which have capital punishment for homosexuals, 11 of which are Islamic. Most people there agree with it because that's what the religion reaches them. When we did a survey in 2016, over 50% of British Muslims said they wanted homosexuality to be illegal. This site wouldn't exist if we are going to follow Islamic cultural values. I am pretty sure most people understand which lifestyle choices are incompatible with Islam. Not to mention, other liberal values like freedom of expression. Out of 50 Muslim majority countries. Still, people don't let that stand in the way of their prejudice. I've no idea what any of this has got to do with the OP, does this political party stand a chance of gaining power and putting these principles into practice? 11 of them have capital punishment. Most other countries have other kinds of punishments ranging from fines to life imprisonment. Less than 10 countries of them have legal status for sexual intercourse between homosexuals. Most of them are countries where the religion is not seriously practiced, like Kosovo and Turkey. I personally know of a Turkish gay guy who moved to UK because he is scared of the level of Islamic immigration in Turkey and as an ex-Muslim, he believes that Gay rights will not survive in an Islamic nation. But don't let any of these facts get into your way of love for the religion of peace. As for why it's related to the post, if you allow more and more immigration of people with views like this. They will develop enough political power to actually make changes. Naz Shah asking for blasphemy laws, an Islamic party trying to participate in the elections are symptoms of what would happen. Over 50% or Muslims on UK wanted to make homosexuality illegal. What exactly do you think will happen in the long term? " Ah standard anti immigration rant. Crack on. Long term I expect more Tories vote against gay rights than other politicians. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It’s inevitable that eventually the UK and much of Europe will become Islamic. It’s just demographics. The irony of course is that the Western liberals who have been so keen on bringing about this end and all of their pet causes will get wiped out. Turkeys voting for xmas, does spring to mind when I see some of the groups that protest in favour of people and countries that have a religious upbringing that does not tolerate their lifestyle choices... Do you have an example of the "lifestyle choices" that you are referring to? Literally hundreds of examples, you know that though, surely? Or are you trying to play “gotcha” No, just wondering what you mean. But if you prefer to have a pop at me instead of answering. That's fine, we can just leave it without knowing what you mean. There are 12 countries in the world which have capital punishment for homosexuals, 11 of which are Islamic. Most people there agree with it because that's what the religion reaches them. When we did a survey in 2016, over 50% of British Muslims said they wanted homosexuality to be illegal. This site wouldn't exist if we are going to follow Islamic cultural values. I am pretty sure most people understand which lifestyle choices are incompatible with Islam. Not to mention, other liberal values like freedom of expression. Out of 50 Muslim majority countries. Still, people don't let that stand in the way of their prejudice. I've no idea what any of this has got to do with the OP, does this political party stand a chance of gaining power and putting these principles into practice? 11 of them have capital punishment. Most other countries have other kinds of punishments ranging from fines to life imprisonment. Less than 10 countries of them have legal status for sexual intercourse between homosexuals. Most of them are countries where the religion is not seriously practiced, like Kosovo and Turkey. I personally know of a Turkish gay guy who moved to UK because he is scared of the level of Islamic immigration in Turkey and as an ex-Muslim, he believes that Gay rights will not survive in an Islamic nation. But don't let any of these facts get into your way of love for the religion of peace. As for why it's related to the post, if you allow more and more immigration of people with views like this. They will develop enough political power to actually make changes. Naz Shah asking for blasphemy laws, an Islamic party trying to participate in the elections are symptoms of what would happen. Over 50% or Muslims on UK wanted to make homosexuality illegal. What exactly do you think will happen in the long term? Ah standard anti immigration rant. Crack on. Long term I expect more Tories vote against gay rights than other politicians. " Anti immigration is not the same as anti being overrun by Islam. Did you know November is islamophobia awareness month here in the UK? Guess who started that? I wonder which other religions have an awareness month? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It’s inevitable that eventually the UK and much of Europe will become Islamic. It’s just demographics. The irony of course is that the Western liberals who have been so keen on bringing about this end and all of their pet causes will get wiped out. Turkeys voting for xmas, does spring to mind when I see some of the groups that protest in favour of people and countries that have a religious upbringing that does not tolerate their lifestyle choices... Do you have an example of the "lifestyle choices" that you are referring to? Literally hundreds of examples, you know that though, surely? Or are you trying to play “gotcha” No, just wondering what you mean. But if you prefer to have a pop at me instead of answering. That's fine, we can just leave it without knowing what you mean. There are 12 countries in the world which have capital punishment for homosexuals, 11 of which are Islamic. Most people there agree with it because that's what the religion reaches them. When we did a survey in 2016, over 50% of British Muslims said they wanted homosexuality to be illegal. This site wouldn't exist if we are going to follow Islamic cultural values. I am pretty sure most people understand which lifestyle choices are incompatible with Islam. Not to mention, other liberal values like freedom of expression. Out of 50 Muslim majority countries. Still, people don't let that stand in the way of their prejudice. I've no idea what any of this has got to do with the OP, does this political party stand a chance of gaining power and putting these principles into practice? 11 of them have capital punishment. Most other countries have other kinds of punishments ranging from fines to life imprisonment. Less than 10 countries of them have legal status for sexual intercourse between homosexuals. Most of them are countries where the religion is not seriously practiced, like Kosovo and Turkey. I personally know of a Turkish gay guy who moved to UK because he is scared of the level of Islamic immigration in Turkey and as an ex-Muslim, he believes that Gay rights will not survive in an Islamic nation. But don't let any of these facts get into your way of love for the religion of peace. As for why it's related to the post, if you allow more and more immigration of people with views like this. They will develop enough political power to actually make changes. Naz Shah asking for blasphemy laws, an Islamic party trying to participate in the elections are symptoms of what would happen. Over 50% or Muslims on UK wanted to make homosexuality illegal. What exactly do you think will happen in the long term? Ah standard anti immigration rant. Crack on. Long term I expect more Tories vote against gay rights than other politicians. " If I was you I would try and take a wider view and stop trying to back people into phobic corners to score points. You play this game regularly and then go on to blame others for attacking you, like you did me, and you know very well you I didn't I called you out for trying to play a game instead of discussing. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It’s inevitable that eventually the UK and much of Europe will become Islamic. It’s just demographics. The irony of course is that the Western liberals who have been so keen on bringing about this end and all of their pet causes will get wiped out. Turkeys voting for xmas, does spring to mind when I see some of the groups that protest in favour of people and countries that have a religious upbringing that does not tolerate their lifestyle choices... Do you have an example of the "lifestyle choices" that you are referring to? Literally hundreds of examples, you know that though, surely? Or are you trying to play “gotcha” No, just wondering what you mean. But if you prefer to have a pop at me instead of answering. That's fine, we can just leave it without knowing what you mean. There are 12 countries in the world which have capital punishment for homosexuals, 11 of which are Islamic. Most people there agree with it because that's what the religion reaches them. When we did a survey in 2016, over 50% of British Muslims said they wanted homosexuality to be illegal. This site wouldn't exist if we are going to follow Islamic cultural values. I am pretty sure most people understand which lifestyle choices are incompatible with Islam. Not to mention, other liberal values like freedom of expression. Out of 50 Muslim majority countries. Still, people don't let that stand in the way of their prejudice. I've no idea what any of this has got to do with the OP, does this political party stand a chance of gaining power and putting these principles into practice? 11 of them have capital punishment. Most other countries have other kinds of punishments ranging from fines to life imprisonment. Less than 10 countries of them have legal status for sexual intercourse between homosexuals. Most of them are countries where the religion is not seriously practiced, like Kosovo and Turkey. I personally know of a Turkish gay guy who moved to UK because he is scared of the level of Islamic immigration in Turkey and as an ex-Muslim, he believes that Gay rights will not survive in an Islamic nation. But don't let any of these facts get into your way of love for the religion of peace. As for why it's related to the post, if you allow more and more immigration of people with views like this. They will develop enough political power to actually make changes. Naz Shah asking for blasphemy laws, an Islamic party trying to participate in the elections are symptoms of what would happen. Over 50% or Muslims on UK wanted to make homosexuality illegal. What exactly do you think will happen in the long term? Ah standard anti immigration rant. Crack on. Long term I expect more Tories vote against gay rights than other politicians. " Typical reply that doesn't refute any of the points I made. Of course, label it as anti-immigration. If you are allowing immigration of a group of people with over 50% of them wanting to make homosexuality illegal, over a period of time, they will have enough political power to actually make it illegal. I see that you have already brought in Tories into the argument. There are levels to it. Being pro-gay rights, being pro-gay rights and even legally recognising gay marriage but not wanting this topic to be brought up in schools, being pro gay rights but not happy with legal recognition of gay marriage, wanting homosexuality to be illegal, wanting homosexuals to be killed. If you cannot even see that difference, it's hard to argue with you. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It’s inevitable that eventually the UK and much of Europe will become Islamic. It’s just demographics. The irony of course is that the Western liberals who have been so keen on bringing about this end and all of their pet causes will get wiped out. Turkeys voting for xmas, does spring to mind when I see some of the groups that protest in favour of people and countries that have a religious upbringing that does not tolerate their lifestyle choices... Do you have an example of the "lifestyle choices" that you are referring to? Literally hundreds of examples, you know that though, surely? Or are you trying to play “gotcha” No, just wondering what you mean. But if you prefer to have a pop at me instead of answering. That's fine, we can just leave it without knowing what you mean. There are 12 countries in the world which have capital punishment for homosexuals, 11 of which are Islamic. Most people there agree with it because that's what the religion reaches them. When we did a survey in 2016, over 50% of British Muslims said they wanted homosexuality to be illegal. This site wouldn't exist if we are going to follow Islamic cultural values. I am pretty sure most people understand which lifestyle choices are incompatible with Islam. Not to mention, other liberal values like freedom of expression. Out of 50 Muslim majority countries. Still, people don't let that stand in the way of their prejudice. I've no idea what any of this has got to do with the OP, does this political party stand a chance of gaining power and putting these principles into practice? 11 of them have capital punishment. Most other countries have other kinds of punishments ranging from fines to life imprisonment. Less than 10 countries of them have legal status for sexual intercourse between homosexuals. Most of them are countries where the religion is not seriously practiced, like Kosovo and Turkey. I personally know of a Turkish gay guy who moved to UK because he is scared of the level of Islamic immigration in Turkey and as an ex-Muslim, he believes that Gay rights will not survive in an Islamic nation. But don't let any of these facts get into your way of love for the religion of peace. As for why it's related to the post, if you allow more and more immigration of people with views like this. They will develop enough political power to actually make changes. Naz Shah asking for blasphemy laws, an Islamic party trying to participate in the elections are symptoms of what would happen. Over 50% or Muslims on UK wanted to make homosexuality illegal. What exactly do you think will happen in the long term? Ah standard anti immigration rant. Crack on. Long term I expect more Tories vote against gay rights than other politicians. Typical reply that doesn't refute any of the points I made. Of course, label it as anti-immigration. If you are allowing immigration of a group of people with over 50% of them wanting to make homosexuality illegal, over a period of time, they will have enough political power to actually make it illegal. I see that you have already brought in Tories into the argument. There are levels to it. Being pro-gay rights, being pro-gay rights and even legally recognising gay marriage but not wanting this topic to be brought up in schools, being pro gay rights but not happy with legal recognition of gay marriage, wanting homosexuality to be illegal, wanting homosexuals to be killed. If you cannot even see that difference, it's hard to argue with you." It’s all pretty academic. In time simple demographics says that Muslims will become the majority in the Uk and across much of Europe. At the moment Labour needs the Muslim vote in big cities, but in time as the Muslim vote expands all parties will have to pander to it. In twenty years time when there is an attack on Israel the UK and Europe will stay silent. In fifty years time the UK and Europe will be supporting the attack on Israel. Western liberals naively think that fundamentally everyone wants to be just like them given the chance, but by the time they realise their mistake it will be too late. Frankly there is no way that a weak and decadent liberal Western culture is going to be able to stand up to the discipline and dedication of Islam. And of course it’s not the West’s political right who will have much to fear from Islam, it will be Islam’s liberal running dogs who are in for a shock. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It’s inevitable that eventually the UK and much of Europe will become Islamic. It’s just demographics. The irony of course is that the Western liberals who have been so keen on bringing about this end and all of their pet causes will get wiped out. Turkeys voting for xmas, does spring to mind when I see some of the groups that protest in favour of people and countries that have a religious upbringing that does not tolerate their lifestyle choices... Do you have an example of the "lifestyle choices" that you are referring to? Literally hundreds of examples, you know that though, surely? Or are you trying to play “gotcha” No, just wondering what you mean. But if you prefer to have a pop at me instead of answering. That's fine, we can just leave it without knowing what you mean. There are 12 countries in the world which have capital punishment for homosexuals, 11 of which are Islamic. Most people there agree with it because that's what the religion reaches them. When we did a survey in 2016, over 50% of British Muslims said they wanted homosexuality to be illegal. This site wouldn't exist if we are going to follow Islamic cultural values. I am pretty sure most people understand which lifestyle choices are incompatible with Islam. Not to mention, other liberal values like freedom of expression. Out of 50 Muslim majority countries. Still, people don't let that stand in the way of their prejudice. I've no idea what any of this has got to do with the OP, does this political party stand a chance of gaining power and putting these principles into practice? 11 of them have capital punishment. Most other countries have other kinds of punishments ranging from fines to life imprisonment. Less than 10 countries of them have legal status for sexual intercourse between homosexuals. Most of them are countries where the religion is not seriously practiced, like Kosovo and Turkey. I personally know of a Turkish gay guy who moved to UK because he is scared of the level of Islamic immigration in Turkey and as an ex-Muslim, he believes that Gay rights will not survive in an Islamic nation. But don't let any of these facts get into your way of love for the religion of peace. As for why it's related to the post, if you allow more and more immigration of people with views like this. They will develop enough political power to actually make changes. Naz Shah asking for blasphemy laws, an Islamic party trying to participate in the elections are symptoms of what would happen. Over 50% or Muslims on UK wanted to make homosexuality illegal. What exactly do you think will happen in the long term? Ah standard anti immigration rant. Crack on. Long term I expect more Tories vote against gay rights than other politicians. If I was you I would try and take a wider view and stop trying to back people into phobic corners to score points. You play this game regularly and then go on to blame others for attacking you, like you did me, and you know very well you I didn't I called you out for trying to play a game instead of discussing. " If you're unable to discuss the topics and just play the player instead of the ball it's pointless. It's a shame because you always used to articulate points that were interesting, if contrary to my own. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"If I was you I would try and take a wider view and stop trying to back people into phobic corners to score points. You play this game regularly and then go on to blame others for attacking you, like you did me, and you know very well you I didn't I called you out for trying to play a game instead of discussing. " ********************************************** You know, on consideration...... I suspect others on the forum know these 'tactics', I've been there myself once or twice and the standard modus operendi when challenged is to cry the 'victim'...., or 'play the ball, not the man'....., 'have a pop at me'....., 'I was insulted'....., 'Telling lies about me'...... etc., etc., etc... The green arrow is a very useful feature, if anyone has fifteen or twenty minutes to spare. It's pitiful. That said, it's completely irrelevant, given the platform (such as it is....!) | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"We have to be wary of losing our freedoms but also wary of this becoming a 'Rivers of Blood' moment in the forum." In case you didn't notice, we already lost some freedoms | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"We have to be wary of losing our freedoms but also wary of this becoming a 'Rivers of Blood' moment in the forum." "In case you didn't notice, we already lost some freedoms " Go on then, what legal freedoms have we lost so far? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"We have to be wary of losing our freedoms but also wary of this becoming a 'Rivers of Blood' moment in the forum. In case you didn't notice, we already lost some freedoms Go on then, what legal freedoms have we lost so far?" Legally not, practically we have lost. Can you draw the forbidden picture in public and live your life as you did before? The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Or can you do anything with the Quran at all? If the police are going to watch an autistic kid's mother to beg forgiveness to a bunch of religious nutters for the kid damaging a book, after the kid received death threats, we have lost the rights already. Not to forget that the Lady of heaven movie was taked down from some cinemas because some groups found it offensive. The problem is that police in this country focus more on de-escalation instead of focusing on individual rights. So instead of tackling the people who threaten violence, they take the easy way out by just taking away other people's right to expression. The result is we have de-facto blasphemy laws in the form of street laws. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Legally not, practically we have lost. Can you draw the forbidden picture in public and live your life as you did before? The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Or can you do anything with the Quran at all? If the police are going to watch an autistic kid's mother to beg forgiveness to a bunch of religious nutters for the kid damaging a book, after the kid received death threats, we have lost the rights already. Not to forget that the Lady of heaven movie was taked down from some cinemas because some groups found it offensive. The problem is that police in this country focus more on de-escalation instead of focusing on individual rights. So instead of tackling the people who threaten violence, they take the easy way out by just taking away other people's right to expression. The result is we have de-facto blasphemy laws in the form of street laws." ******************************** Well said, thank you. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"If I was you I would try and take a wider view and stop trying to back people into phobic corners to score points. You play this game regularly and then go on to blame others for attacking you, like you did me, and you know very well you I didn't I called you out for trying to play a game instead of discussing. ********************************************** You know, on consideration...... I suspect others on the forum know these 'tactics', I've been there myself once or twice and the standard modus operendi when challenged is to cry the 'victim'...., or 'play the ball, not the man'....., 'have a pop at me'....., 'I was insulted'....., 'Telling lies about me'...... etc., etc., etc... The green arrow is a very useful feature, if anyone has fifteen or twenty minutes to spare. It's pitiful. That said, it's completely irrelevant, given the platform (such as it is....!)" PILE ON ALERT  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"If I was you I would try and take a wider view and stop trying to back people into phobic corners to score points. You play this game regularly and then go on to blame others for attacking you, like you did me, and you know very well you I didn't I called you out for trying to play a game instead of discussing. ********************************************** You know, on consideration...... I suspect others on the forum know these 'tactics', I've been there myself once or twice and the standard modus operendi when challenged is to cry the 'victim'...., or 'play the ball, not the man'....., 'have a pop at me'....., 'I was insulted'....., 'Telling lies about me'...... etc., etc., etc... The green arrow is a very useful feature, if anyone has fifteen or twenty minutes to spare. It's pitiful. That said, it's completely irrelevant, given the platform (such as it is....!) PILE ON ALERT "One person replying to another is not a pile on. Behave yourself  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"If I was you I would try and take a wider view and stop trying to back people into phobic corners to score points. You play this game regularly and then go on to blame others for attacking you, like you did me, and you know very well you I didn't I called you out for trying to play a game instead of discussing. ********************************************** You know, on consideration...... I suspect others on the forum know these 'tactics', I've been there myself once or twice and the standard modus operendi when challenged is to cry the 'victim'...., or 'play the ball, not the man'....., 'have a pop at me'....., 'I was insulted'....., 'Telling lies about me'...... etc., etc., etc... The green arrow is a very useful feature, if anyone has fifteen or twenty minutes to spare. It's pitiful. That said, it's completely irrelevant, given the platform (such as it is....!) PILE ON ALERT
One person replying to another is not a pile on. Behave yourself "No they were jumping into a conversation between two people to then have a go at one of them. PILE ON | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
