Jump to content

viney40

Banned
  • Content Count

    598
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by viney40


  1. Platitudes don't cut it you said:

     

    "You are both as right as you are wrong."

     

    So I'm asking you how can we both "both as right as you are wrong" on an issue where there is no middle ground?

     

    The choice is there, argue that your opinion is the only one until war, or seek the middle ground. It's there to be found. Live and let Live.

     

    When the snow is on the ground (soon) , will you choose to make a snowman for all to enjoy. Or will you make a huge snow penis that will cause upset and controversy?


  2. I believe that I left you to your ignorance and inability to understand logic.

     

    Jobee is (as appears to be usual) wrong, and someone else is right, it's been many people through the thread, not yet yourself though.

     

    Live and let Live is not supposed to be a rallying cry to allow idiocy to go unchallenged in a public discussion.

     

    The inability to take on more than one point of view?

     

    You are ignorant and a self confessed idiot. Your opinion, not mine. :)


  3. How can we both be "as right as we are wrong" when we hold binary opposite positions on an issue on which there can be no compromise?

     

    • Jobee thinks organised religion should be criminalised
    • I think organised religion should remain legal

    What compromise between our two positions is there?

     

    Should 50% of religions be criminalised perhaps?

    Maybe you think organised religion be criminalised for women but not for men?

    Perhaps you think religion should be criminalised in spring and summer but legal in autumn and winter?

     

    I must confess I'm intrigued so please do inform us what the golden mean position on this issue is.

     

    Live and let Live.


  4. Humans have never stuck to the basics of organised christianity.

    It was Christians that destroyed the American indian.

    Both world wars were started by christian countries.

    Thousands of christians serve in the Uk and US armies volunteering to kill.

     

    This would suggest that banning organised Christianity would make no difference to humanity?

     

    If so, why ban it?


  5. At first sight, this is logical. However, most mammals exhibit homosexual behaviour. If genes underlying homosexuality completely prevented their own transmission to the next generation, this behaviour would not be so widespread.

     

    To explain this, group selection is commonly invoked. In this case, the key concept is that within a group of related individuals, a minority of homosexual members increase the reproductive fitness of the group as a whole. Although they do not procreate directly themselves, they therefore facilitate the propagation of genes conferring homosexual tendencies to the next generation.

     

    So, the gay's do all their gay stuff, then after a while, realise that it isn't going to amount to anything. They then go and do some hetro stuff with a hetro in order to spread their denims. The hetro's are by now up for it, as they have been through all the other hetro's, and fancy a change of scene.

    Next think we know, new generation wearing gay denims.

     

    Think I've got it now.


  6. So why did you say "No, simply a belief, not an act" in your previous post then if you weren't claiming I was suggesting that Jobee also performed idiotic acts?

     

     

    How so? Expressing the opinion that someone is an idiot with moronic beliefs as I have done, is a completely different 'boat' to suggesting that beliefs you don't like should be criminalised as Jobee has done.

     

    The only difference is your choice of narrative. Keep rowing.


  7. It may well become a capital offence in Uganda early next year with Nigeria close behind. People can't even promote or defend being gay. I think the West should make a stand and threaten to go to war if this bigot stupidity becomes law.

     

    We get to hear about the (Muslim) Somali men using women as target practice but this at least as bad in my book and journalists say it is the christian nut jobs who are behind it:

     

    In Entebbe last week, 200 religious leaders, under the powerful umbrella group Inter-Religious Council of Uganda, demanded diplomatic ties be severed with "ungodly" donor countries, including the UK, Sweden and Canada, who are "bent on forcing homosexuality on Ugandans".

     

    Does Uganda have any oil reserves?

     

    In case you weren't aware, most sexual activity in certain parts of Africa results in death, gay or otherwise. :loopy:


  8. If he doesn't then he's spectacularly poor at getting his point across.

    If he does then he's also spectacularly poor at expressing himself as he's been unable to say how he'd enforce it.

     

    If all he wanted to do was suggest that it'd be a good idea to sepetate state and church, then why not say that?

     

    Because as well as being a poet, he also enjoys fishing.


  9. No. The difference is that neither I nor Plekhanov, nor most other right thinking people would seek to prevent Jobee expressing his beliefs, however stupid and dangerous they might be.

     

    He would seek to ban others from freely expressing their beliefs.

     

    Clue: You don't honestly believe that do you Halibut?


  10. ;5731076']I should add to your post that i would also be dusgusted if a ban on religion would come into force and i would also fight such a ban with every bone in my body.... violently if needed despite the fact i'm an atheist. I value personal freedom above all else...

     

    And would deny anyone else's personal freedom by the use of violence. :loopy:


  11. Where did I say it was an act? I'm clearly talking about Jobee's moronic belief that his proposals wouldn't lead to unrest in the face of both theists and atheists (who he claims are on his side remember) telling him that they would resist his fascistic policies. I for one would resist his idiotic policies and I'm generally reckoned to be one of the more 'zealous' 'fundamentalist' atheists on here.

     

    You didn't, and neither did I, "just a belief, not an act", remember?

     

    You are clearly saying that jobee's beliefs are moronic.

     

    Your beliefs are different to his, so you call him moronic and idiotic.

     

    You have managed to plant yourself firmly in his boat.


  12. I know what you mean. Its not nice though when the female of the household can outfart the male. I have the male reputation to think of:hihi:

     

    Too right my man, If we show weakness other women will soon get wind of it!

     

    Next thing we know, we'll be washing pots and stuff while the women folk sit on the sofa watching darts and ripping some right ones out!


  13. No it's actually more naive and foolish that the beliefs of many British christians as the effects of him getting his way would be much more disastrous than them getting theirs.

     

    Furthermore whilst most moderately sophisticated British Xians are carefull enough to make their beliefs effectively untestable like more primitive theists Jobee has made a hard easily testable claim - that criminalising religion wouldn't lead to unrest. We only need to look at what's happened in societies where similar things have been tried to see that it does leed to unrest. Jobee is on the same level of idiocy as someone who claiming that greek gods live on top of mount Olympus in a big palace.

     

    No, simply a belief, not an act.


  14. That's a pretty lame answer if you're expecting anyone to take you seriously.

    How would you enforce the law?

    What would be the penalty for disobeying the law?

     

    How would you enforce the law, name calling?

     

    You have managed to put yourself on the same level as jobee by disrespecting other peoples beliefs.


  15. :

    Do you not agree that someone proposing banning the freedom to practise your faith is naive and stupid in thinking that there wouldn't be a huge popular protest and widespread civil disobedience if such a law were ever imposed?

     

    It would make the poll tax protests look tame.

     

    I would agree, but without the name calling. :)


  16. Originally Posted by flamingjimmy

    You seem to have misunderstood my post, only the first question was rhetorical.

     

    "How naive can you be?

     

    How on earth would you go about enforcing a ban on religion without using force?

     

    Also how would you deal with all the people like me who would take to the streets in angry protest?"

     

    I honestly think the best way for us to take this debate forward would be for you to answer the second two questions rather than making an unrelated point.

    Yes, how would you deal with the many thousands who protest?

     

    How could you deal with mass civil disobedience without force?

    __________________

    quote. Confirm by law that the bible is a work of fiction, which it is.

     

    Remove the 26 frocks/ pimps from the house of lords.

     

    Ignore the protesters.

     

    You would get no trouble from the Christian's, as they are not involved in religion, just faith. They are selfless according to Grahame and would simply fall into line.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.