How many Syrian children are coming here?

How many Syrian children are coming here?

Author
Discussion

Goaty Bill 2

3,393 posts

118 months

Monday 20th February 2017
quotequote all
e21Mark said:
del mar said:
some Religions are more ridiculous than others and deserve to be mocked.
Why though? Why do some hold a sneering desire to rob some folk of their hope? I'm agnostic myself and as such, far from convinced of the existence of God. That doesn't mean that some part of me doesn't hope there might be a benevolent, forgiving God though. I know some cite the thousands of killings that have been committed in the name of religion but, were all religion to cease to be tomorrow, man would still kill one another. It's something we appear driven to do.

Extremist or terrorist are not Muslim though. They are no more representative of being Muslim than the KKK are of being Christians. There are many Muslims who live peaceful lives as part of our society. There are Muslim soldiers serving in our armed forces. It won't be enough though. The hate, suspicion and division run too deep.
And the hands of the enlightened Marxists are so clean...
40-60 million in the USSR
90-100 million in Mao's China
600,000 to 850,000 in North Korea, with some estimates hinting as high as 3.5 million
Cuba awaits us...

All in the name of an ideology. One that virtually wiped out all religions in those countries, but did the killing and the dying stop?
As you rightly notice, you don't require a religion for killing, you simply require an ideology, and to convince enough people to agree to follow it.


Rich_W

12,548 posts

211 months

Monday 20th February 2017
quotequote all
SpeedMattersNot said:
Paul Joseph Watson is a nasty, Islamophobic, misogynistic man.
Nasty? Hardly. I don't agree with everything he posts. But in this current culture of libtards. It's inevitable that you'll get some aggressive push back.
Islamophobic. I'd agree https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eah1niD0dqs TBH whilst not every question is a winner. There's some food for discussion in ther(probably some swear words)
Misogynistic? Dunno. He's definitely talked about MGTOW and NeoMasculinity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qHnIp-WzCI (he is shouting a bit so turn it down a litte) And tbh I think he's right about 3rd Wave Feminism being essentially misandry. Which of course is what has caused MGTOW to exist at all.


jjlynn27 said:
No, you are making things up. What I said is that video made by conspiracy theory nutjobs are not worth watching.
And funnily enough if it was a story about 9.11 being an inside job. Or the illuminati. I'd agree with you. But the vid I linked was quite accurately calling out dumb fking celebrities virtue signalling. I have no problem with that!

Maybe you SHOULD watch it, and critique it for us.

techiedave said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
His best mate Tommy Robinson is also a decent chap, isn't he. This place is shocking.
So in other words unless we blindly accept what these luvvie say we are all paid up members of the KKK.
Put another way it is perfectly reasonable to question these peoples motives and as others have pointed out they seem to live a life of privilege in areas that will not be affected directly.
This is WHY the centre right is making such grounds in politics currently. The left LOVE to call people RACIST and FACIST and "alt-right" When in the main, people aren't. They just have reasonable concerns about something. But the left wont let them articulate them. OR in the case of sppedmatters. Imply that by having any concerns you are undereducated or thick.

The idea is to keep the majority quiet. To let us know our place. To let us know, they know best for us.

e21Mark said:
I imagine the tax JK Rowling has paid would build quite a few apartment buildings?
I would be VERY Surprised if JK Rowling paid much tax in the UK. The super rich rarely do. Branson, Philip Green etc.

Funnily enough Bernie Ecclestone does pay all his Tax in the UK. He makes a point of it. Not sure why he isn't being more tricky though. But I digress

andymadmak said:
iSore said:
Deptford Draylons said:
Congratulations, you've just rolled over and been silenced because a group of people have told you under a threat of violence they are more special and sensitive than others. Religion isn't sacred, and nor should it ever be.
Thanks, congrats accepted.

I'd personally rather not go out of my way and annoy folk for a cheap laugh. I'm odd like that!
It's a slippery slope though isn't it? How about we expect some sort of proportionality of response from people who are offended?
Publishing a cartoon, no matter how crass, insensitive or boorish it might be does not in any way justify murder as a response. If people think that murder IS a proportionate response to a mocking cartoon, then perhaps they are not suited to living in a liberal western society?
Careful with that sensible talk. The left will call you racist or islamaphobic in a jiffy

e21Mark said:
del mar said:
some Religions are more ridiculous than others and deserve to be mocked.
Why though? Why do some hold a sneering desire to rob some folk of their hope? I'm agnostic myself and as such, far from convinced of the existence of God. That doesn't mean that some part of me doesn't hope there might be a benevolent, forgiving God though. I know some cite the thousands of killings that have been committed in the name of religion but, were all religion to cease to be tomorrow, man would still kill one another. It's something we appear driven to do.

I'm an Athiest.

You know why I laugh at people who hold hope that there's some higher power or god?

Cancer in children!

If there's a god then he needs to explain to me why children who have done nothing wrong are given life limiting diseases. What good does that do Humanity? What kind of god is that? And the type that wants you to KNEEL before him? fking egotist laugh


Deptford Draylons

10,480 posts

242 months

Monday 20th February 2017
quotequote all
iSore said:
Deptford Draylons said:
You're actually serious aren't you?!

Very serious. Idiots like you fill delusional left wing politics who would happily roll over in the way you described with no regard to anyone else. It's very sad you can't / won't defend your frightening ideas.
Er, I voted Tory. No time for left wing idiots, or ultra right wing morons like you either. The EDL should cater for your xenophobic fears nicely however - give 'em a call! :-)
So the desire that all religions should not be special in any way and can be mocked or criticised, is now xenophobic thinking ? We have a lot of PH racist screamers, but you may just be the thickest one yet. I seriously hope for the sake of the country that you aren't of voting age.

iSore

4,011 posts

143 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
Deptford Draylons said:
So the desire that all religions should not be special in any way and can be mocked or criticised, is now xenophobic thinking ? We have a lot of PH racist screamers, but you may just be the thickest one yet. I seriously hope for the sake of the country that you aren't of voting age.
Jeeeezus :-o


Call the white coats, Lads, this one's gone. Bring some suitable straps as well.

Deptford Draylons

10,480 posts

242 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
iSore said:
Deptford Draylons said:
So the desire that all religions should not be special in any way and can be mocked or criticised, is now xenophobic thinking ? We have a lot of PH racist screamers, but you may just be the thickest one yet. I seriously hope for the sake of the country that you aren't of voting age.
Jeeeezus :-o


Call the white coats, Lads, this one's gone. Bring some suitable straps as well.
As someone else said of you, pathetic.

SKP555

1,114 posts

125 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
To be clear iSore, are you saying that Islam should have special protections from mockery and criticism not afforded to other religions? In law? Or just by common acceptance that it should never be mocked or criticised?

e21Mark

16,205 posts

172 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
"The main one was that I wanted my children to grow up where I grew up, to have proper roots in a culture as old and magnificent as Britain's; to be citizens, with everything that implies, of a real country, not free-floating expats, living in the limbo of some tax haven and associating only with the children of similarly greedy tax exiles.

"A second reason was that I am indebted to the welfare state... When my life hit rock bottom, that safety net, threadbare though it had become under John Major, was there to break the fall."

JK Rowling.

Her tax bill is proportional to her wealth and putting her in with the likes of Philip Green is neither fair nor accurate.


danllama

5,728 posts

141 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
She wanted her kids to grow up where she did, but feels more comfortable in a walled off, isolated mansion.

Edited by danllama on Tuesday 21st February 08:30

Goaty Bill 2

3,393 posts

118 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
e21Mark said:
"The main one was that I wanted my children to grow up where I grew up, to have proper roots in a culture as old and magnificent as Britain's; to be citizens, with everything that implies, of a real country, not free-floating expats, living in the limbo of some tax haven and associating only with the children of similarly greedy tax exiles.

"A second reason was that I am indebted to the welfare state... When my life hit rock bottom, that safety net, threadbare though it had become under John Major, was there to break the fall."

JK Rowling.

Her tax bill is proportional to her wealth and putting her in with the likes of Philip Green is neither fair nor accurate.
I personally do not place Rowling in the same category as the likes of Geldof and Lilly Allen, though I do think the 'cult of Rowling' is somewhat beyond reasonable justification.

Geldof being principally known for his massive, albeit accidental or well intentioned, contributions to one of the most corrupt African regimes of it's time, and Allen for pure mindless stupidity and appalling public behaviour.
Champagne liberals, of which Sir Bob has become a shining example, are morally repulsive creatures.
Lilly Allen displays a shocking lack of intelligence and education thus failing to be qualified to comment on anything of import. She really should stop her inarticulate tttering, for her own good if not ours.

To place Rowling in the same category as the likes of Philip Green would be unkind in the extreme I am sure.

I will however object to her blaming Mr. Major for the state of the welfare state. Albeit he was the erstwhile chancellor (presiding only long enough to present one budget), he pretty much inherited what had been left to him by Thatcher. He was though responsible for the creation of the first Job Clubs and Executive Job Clubs, recognising that many normally hard working people had been deeply affected by the Thatcher driven recession, and added the Retraining for Work scheme. (Tony Blair later claimed full credit for the economic recovery that was well under way by the time he took office.)
I also put considerably more back into the economy owing to finding work via the EJC, and eventually being retrained into a highly skilled, highly paid IT role. Sadly, I have benefited the country on nothing like the scale Ms. Rowling has frown



iSore

4,011 posts

143 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
SKP555 said:
To be clear iSore, are you saying that Islam should have special protections from mockery and criticism not afforded to other religions? In law? Or just by common acceptance that it should never be mocked or criticised?
Not special protection, just common sense that maybe the Deptford Moron* would understand at his meetings with his sleeveless vest wearing mates daaan the Dog and 'ammer. Or maybe not.
Criticism is one thing, outright offensive piss taking is another. The less intelligent often confuse the two. (See above*)

Criticism of some aspects is healthy enough - the wearing of a Burqa can be criticised.I myself don't agree with it.

Stupid, unfunny and offensive cartoons? Just don't. It's not worth pissing folk off for a cheap laugh.

Is it?

iSore

4,011 posts

143 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
Goaty Bill 2 said:
He was though responsible for the creation of the first Job Clubs and Executive Job Clubs, recognising that many normally hard working people had been deeply affected by the Thatcher driven recession, and added the Retraining for Work scheme.
Been there, done that - 25 years ago this year. Major was a great PM, the last decent one we've had.

But we're sidetracking slightly.

Mark Benson

7,498 posts

268 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
iSore said:
Stupid, unfunny and offensive cartoons? Just don't. It's not worth pissing folk off for a cheap laugh.

Is it?
But should the use of a cartoon, however unfunny it might be, be met with (lethal, in at least high profile case in France) violence? Is that proportional?

andymadmak

14,481 posts

269 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
iSore said:
SKP555 said:
To be clear iSore, are you saying that Islam should have special protections from mockery and criticism not afforded to other religions? In law? Or just by common acceptance that it should never be mocked or criticised?
Not special protection, just common sense that maybe the Deptford Moron* would understand at his meetings with his sleeveless vest wearing mates daaan the Dog and 'ammer. Or maybe not.
Criticism is one thing, outright offensive piss taking is another. The less intelligent often confuse the two. (See above*)

Criticism of some aspects is healthy enough - the wearing of a Burqa can be criticised.I myself don't agree with it.

Stupid, unfunny and offensive cartoons? Just don't. It's not worth pissing folk off for a cheap laugh.

Is it?
I think you may want to read back what you have written there. Pissing people off for a laugh? And yet you go to some lengths to create an insult about another poster - inferring that he is a vest wearing neo nazi with a challenged IQ. Perhaps you are serious about that, and not simply having a laugh? OK, well then if that is the case then your caricature of DD is justified in your opinion, yes?

Has it occurred to you that people drawing cartoons or writing books about Islam (or any other religion for that matter) do so because they feel that the criticisms they represent are equally justified? that being the case how would you feel if some of DD's friends felt that an appropriate response to your criticism of him was to come to your house and blow it up with your wife and kids inside? I'd suggest that you would feel that the response was entirely disproportionate and wholly inappropriate?

Would your view then be that its all your own fault because you should not have criticised DD or insulted him? I think not.
How then is it justified for "offended" religious types to respond to criticism with murder? My opinion on this is that all of us have a duty to not be gratuitously offensive, but equally all of us have the right to say and express what we believe to be legitimate criticisms of any individual or group. We should, as habitants of a western liberal democracy, be able to express those views without fear of being attacked.

iSore

4,011 posts

143 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
Mark Benson said:
But should the use of a cartoon, however unfunny it might be, be met with (lethal, in at least high profile case in France) violence? Is that proportional?
Of course not. But the risks/outcome are known. So why would you do it?

jjlynn27

7,935 posts

108 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
Mr Snrub said:
jjlynn27 said:
Mr Snrub said:
jjlynn27 said:
Please don't try to figure out what I believe.
I do believe (if you really want to know) that ratio between useful/entertaining information and dimwit conspiracy theories doesn't warrant watching them. I'm not the target audience for his little rants.
clearly you're going to use semantics to wriggle out so i'll ask again. I have already listed the points made by the video so you don't have to watch it. Which of those do you agree with and which are nutjob conspiracy theories?
No semantics at all. You claimed that I said something that I didn't. That was made up. I quoted my words and your words. No two ways about it.

Not sure how you don't get this, even if everything said in that particular video was true, their general approach to anything is so idiotic that they don't warrant watching any videos made by them. They do have certain demographic as their target audience. I've listed two 'products' that are squarely aimed at people who get info from their website/videos. Where else can you get 'deep cleansing' supplement containing mostly 'nano-distilled water' and Citizen body armor in one place?

Do you watch homeopathic videos to see if they contain anything credible?
Clearly you will not answer the simple question I asked, so there's no point continuing this. I'm out.
You should consider starting your sentences with something other than 'clearly', or at least add a comma after.
The question was answered, quite a few times. Here it is again;
It's completely and utterly irrelevant if all of his points were correct, it would still not make their videos worth watching.
Now, where are we on the homeopathic videos?


jjlynn27

7,935 posts

108 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
Rich W said:
jjlynn27 said:
No, you are making things up. What I said is that video made by conspiracy theory nutjobs are not worth watching.
And funnily enough if it was a story about 9.11 being an inside job. Or the illuminati. I'd agree with you. But the vid I linked was quite accurately calling out dumb fking celebrities virtue signalling. I have no problem with that!
You also don't have a problem typing crap about Rowling's tax affairs or Melania's education record. Infowars is made for people like you. You are the target audience.

iSore

4,011 posts

143 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
andymadmak said:
I think you may want to read back what you have written there. Pissing people off for a laugh? And yet you go to some lengths to create an insult about another poster - inferring that he is a vest wearing neo nazi with a challenged IQ. Perhaps you are serious about that, and not simply having a laugh? OK, well then if that is the case then your caricature of DD is justified in your opinion, yes?

Has it occurred to you that people drawing cartoons or writing books about Islam (or any other religion for that matter) do so because they feel that the criticisms they represent are equally justified? that being the case how would you feel if some of DD's friends felt that an appropriate response to your criticism of him was to come to your house and blow it up with your wife and kids inside? I'd suggest that you would feel that the response was entirely disproportionate and wholly inappropriate?

Would your view then be that its all your own fault because you should not have criticised DD or insulted him? I think not.
How then is it justified for "offended" religious types to respond to criticism with murder? My opinion on this is that all of us have a duty to not be gratuitously offensive, but equally all of us have the right to say and express what we believe to be legitimate criticisms of any individual or group. We should, as habitants of a western liberal democracy, be able to express those views without fear of being attacked.
You miss the point I have tried so hard to make. Yes we are a liberal country. That involves religious tolerance, in spite of our adventures in the Middle East. Islam is the bedrock of people's lives.

Answer me this: what is to be gained by you and I for insulting Islam via cartoons?

Again; just because you can say/do something, doesn't mean you should. I made these two points and the individual above decided to make a meal out of it. I guess his wife wasn't in.

rscott

14,689 posts

190 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
jjlynn27 said:
Mr Snrub said:
jjlynn27 said:
Mr Snrub said:
jjlynn27 said:
Please don't try to figure out what I believe.
I do believe (if you really want to know) that ratio between useful/entertaining information and dimwit conspiracy theories doesn't warrant watching them. I'm not the target audience for his little rants.
clearly you're going to use semantics to wriggle out so i'll ask again. I have already listed the points made by the video so you don't have to watch it. Which of those do you agree with and which are nutjob conspiracy theories?
No semantics at all. You claimed that I said something that I didn't. That was made up. I quoted my words and your words. No two ways about it.

Not sure how you don't get this, even if everything said in that particular video was true, their general approach to anything is so idiotic that they don't warrant watching any videos made by them. They do have certain demographic as their target audience. I've listed two 'products' that are squarely aimed at people who get info from their website/videos. Where else can you get 'deep cleansing' supplement containing mostly 'nano-distilled water' and Citizen body armor in one place?

Do you watch homeopathic videos to see if they contain anything credible?
Clearly you will not answer the simple question I asked, so there's no point continuing this. I'm out.
You should consider starting your sentences with something other than 'clearly', or at least add a comma after.
The question was answered, quite a few times. Here it is again;
It's completely and utterly irrelevant if all of his points were correct, it would still not make their videos worth watching.
Now, where are we on the homeopathic videos?
Oh dear. Mr Watson has made himself look somewhat stupid on Twitter:-

https://www.indy100.com/article/sweden-donald-trum...

Deptford Draylons

10,480 posts

242 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
iSore said:
You miss the point I have tried so hard to make. Yes we are a liberal country. That involves religious tolerance, in spite of our adventures in the Middle East. Islam is the bedrock of people's lives.

Answer me this: what is to be gained by you and I for insulting Islam via cartoons?

Again; just because you can say/do something, doesn't mean you should. I made these two points and the individual above decided to make a meal out of it. I guess his wife wasn't in.
I didn't think you'd have any ability to back up your own ravings, and so it proves.
You are a retard if you think one religion is so special and its followers so delicate as to be singled out to be immune from any mocking or criticism. That you then go on to infer anyone taking this position is a far right extremist akin to the Nazis and EDL etc, only shows your hysterical reaction.

People that think like you on this subject ( thankfully very few ) are very dangerous and weak people, easily intimidated under the direct threat of violent reprisal into making subjects not open to mocking, criticism and debate. There are a good few countries like this, but it would be a massive retarded step if the UK did this.

I only encourage you to reply further. Each time you do so you expose a little bit more of your own intolerance and stupidity on the subject for you to be totally discredited as anyone reasonable.

Hosenbugler

1,854 posts

101 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
iSore said:
Mark Benson said:
But should the use of a cartoon, however unfunny it might be, be met with (lethal, in at least high profile case in France) violence? Is that proportional?
Of course not. But the risks/outcome are known. So why would you do it?
So its perfectly ok to accept that violent death may be the outcome if you draw the wrong type of cartoon and that its acceptable that such happens after drawing that cartoon?