It's interesting to see his fan club to be honest, because he would argue that his Christianity is the very center of his personal philosophy, which is pivotal to the rationale of every aspect of his worldview and political stances.Originally Posted by Lewis
Absolutely drowning in opinion on this speech but can't find anywhere to actually read it.
I'd like to know what centre ground Cameron has claimed. A lot of self-congratulatory noise and not much substance to that claim.
That's the centre ground isn't it?
And as I've said already, my initial post was never specifically to disagree with that premise, but to put forward the other factors for what are on the face of it some shocking numbers.
You were sparring for an argument and clearly leaped in to it before checking you'd actually understood what was happening, as you so often do.
He spent most of it talking about equality. He also SNUBBED Theresa May.
He's just a load of hot air.
Whereas the left...
No he didn't.
It was a joke about a man saying the word fart. Don't be too precious. The Ukipper in you is showing.
Apologies, my phone isn't showing whatever link there presumably is. You're normally the king of dfs in this thread.
The king of dfs?
You say 'moan', I say legitimately criticises. In his early years he would agree with you. I agree with him that most people tend to believe all manner of wrong things in their youth which most grow out of. What it does show is a willingness to change one's mind.
Yes, and one I disagree with him on. He's not right about everything, but he's right that modern Christian values are a damn sight better than the mongoloid ones we have incoming. Of course Christianity has been forced to adapt to secular reasoning over a long period.
Are you on the Metro mobile skin? It should show now.
By pointing out that there may have been other factors too you were trying to water it down at the very least. Otherwise why bother responding to it? But okay if your only point was that there may have been other factors which also made the rape cases rise, great! You can leave now. The main factor is pretty clear, which is backed up by swathes of other evidence both from within Sweden and elsewhere.
I say moans because in The Abolition of Britain he argues that we've hit the skids because the Church of England is no longer over-bearing and repressive and because we had the sexual revolution. Which bits of that 'conservatism' would you like to see return?
It's actually not changing his mind. It's the same morally certain collectivism. He's just found a slightly less stupid version of it. Christopher Hitchens was the same, but his Trotskyism (or rather anti-Stalinism as far as I understand it) was defined by its opposition to totalitarianism, which is how he seamlessly turned against religion.
Ah well that's your interpretation since I'm fairly sure he didn't ask for the church to repress or be overbearing upon anyone. He argues that the death penalty should be re-introduced and that drug use is punished instead of endlessly trying to 'rehabilitate' people who choose to do wrong things. Just look at the Conservatives today - rattling on about equality, sexism and racism. Not bad in itself, but not what one might expect a traditional Conservative party to be focusing on.
And yes, it is him changing his mind - something I've seen him say himself more than once.
As I've said, I pointed out purely because anybody reading it would have thought, "Christ, that's a sharp rise" and may have been interested to also read about some factors behind it. That you're an overly defensive pleb with a victim complex about this sort of thing is the only reason it has been dragged out further than that.
He thinks the Church of England has become pointless because, by embracing social liberalism, it doesn't act how it used to when it used to (according to its followers at least) sit at the centre of a stifling collective morality. If I was having a pop at the other Hitchens you would be claiming that the Church of England is repressive in its very existence and its expected adherence to the 'celestial dictator'.
The modern Conservative Party rattles on about those things as a means of talking about the shifting nature of self-advancement; the thing they've defined themselves by for about eighty years now. Which 'traditional' things would you like to return? No abortion? No gayness? The old restrictions on selling alcohol? Less television (another thing Hitchens slags off)? No easy access to divorce?
I don't think either brother is right about everything, you know. The Church of England is the opposite of repressive, it's a nothingness. The only part of it I dislike a lot is that is has representatives in the Lords. Otherwise, who cares.
lol at that tenuous link. You could say that about just about anything they say or do.The modern Conservative Party rattles on about those things as a means of talking about the shifting nature of self-advancement; the thing they've defined themselves by for about eighty years now. Which 'traditional' things would you like to return? No abortion? No gayness? The old restrictions on selling alcohol? Less television (another thing Hitchens slags off)? No easy access to divorce?
Yes, it is a sharp rise, mostly explained by immigration and multiculturalism, as I keep pointing out. But you don't want that argument, because you know you can't explain away such obvious truths.
Its 'nothingness' is why he doesn't like it. He wants it to be substantial, and to have a significant presence in people's lives; that is to say be repressive. I expect you would care then.
Not really. Equality of opportunity (tied in to sexism/racism) is pretty central to self-advancement. But whatever. Which bits of 'traditional' conservatism do you want to return?lol at that tenuous link. You could say that about just about anything they say or do.
I think you're making tenuous links again. It doesn't follow that it being a more substantial factor in the lives of believers would make it more repressive.
Not really. Equality of opportunity (tied in to sexism/racism) is pretty central to self-advancement. But whatever. Which bits of 'traditional' conservatism do you want to return?[/QUOTE]
Who would be against equality of opportunity? I'm not a Conservative and I don't want Conservatism.
It isn't mostly explained by that, it is mostly explained by legislation changes in the mid-2000s and a attitude shift of revealing the scale of the problem.
It may be that there is an actual rise, rather than an apparent one due to this change, and it may be that that is caused by immigrants, but that isn't what your numbers show.
Well I've backed up my claim with further evidence, you haven't.
Nige letting rip today
Has Harold actually read The Abolition of Britain, I wonder.
If the Church of England reverts back to having more and stricter rules for its followers to live by... Why is it you're against religion again?
What are you then? Because you're always quoting his pronouncements on conservatism (and the Conservatives not being right-wing) approvingly, and you were agreeing with his balls about the sexual revolution a few weeks ago.
Are you so unspeakably stupid that you think immigrants being up to "23 times more likely" to commit rape has by itself led to an almost fifteen times increase in the overall number of rapes? How many immigrants do you think Sweden has?
I never said 'itself', you'll find.
You don't have to be an immigrant to be a Muslim, of course. But I'm fairly sure facts such as these point in a very clear direction. If you aren't scared of the truth, that is.Sweden: 77.6% of all rapes are committed by Muslim males, who total only 2% of population – Gov report
I'm against it being obviously false and people being stupid enough to believe it. I have on many occasions stated that some are worse/more dangerous than others, and the COE is never going to be on that list.
I posted approvingly because he is correct about those things. I also said it's god that Labour have become more left wing, even though I think it's bollocks. I voted UKIP last time, but no party has my undying love since there will never be a party which speaks to me completely.What are you then? Because you're always quoting his pronouncements on conservatism (and the Conservatives not being right-wing) approvingly, and you were agreeing with his balls about the sexual revolution a few weeks ago.
Maybe they were all wrongly convicted, like Ched Evans.
You mocked me for saying it wasn't the key factor. You're being incredibly dense if you can't recognise that the change in the statistical method is the key reason for the "1457%" increase. I'll repeat again, since you're too stupid to take it as implied, that that doesn't mean it is the sole factor.
I will continue to mock you. Even were I to agree with you, it wouldn't change my overall point, which you are singularly unwilling to confront. And I know why that is.
I have no reason to dispute it - I'm not sure why you think I would - I just wanted to point out the insignificance of your numbers and, since you chose to be a dick upon me doing so, subsequently mock your complete lack of logic.
Even if you were right, the number are not insignificant and immigration, particularly from Muslims, is a key reason. To deny this is to be burying your head in the sand and ignoring reality.
They are completely insignificant, because there are too many other, bigger factors for them to mean anything. If you'd led with the other stuff, fine, but you didn't and subsequently tried to argue when I pointed out the limitations of those figures. I've never once claimed that increased incidents of rape by immigrant men is not a factor. What it comes down to is you yet again not understanding what you're talking about.
So the evidence that Muslim immigrants causing sharp rises in rapes in other countries means nothing to you? You see, those of us without agendas can see clear evidence for what it is.
But something being false/stupid is only a problem if it convinces people to repress themselves and others. The Church of England won't do that, because it has embraced social liberalism; but Hitchens doesn't support the Church of England in its current state. He wants it to be 'worse' (as you put it).
If he's correct about the sexual revolution and other ills of liberalism (which makes him more of a reactionary than a conservative), which bits would you like to reverse?I posted approvingly because he is correct about those things. I also said it's god that Labour have become more left wing, even though I think it's bollocks. I voted UKIP last time, but no party has my undying love since there will never be a party which speaks to me completely.
What are you even talking about you fucking thicko? Can you seriously not read what I am writing?
Err, not correct. It can result in laws I disagree with which aren't repressive. It can result in unelected people sitting in the House Of Lords. That's not repressing me but I disagree with it on principle. You don't have to keep telling me what Hitchens thins, I know.
You're making lots of assumptions here. I dislike modern feminism (of the type you brought up earlier) which was spawned from the sexual revolution. And it's pointless talking about reversing anything, it can't be done. Most things about 'rights' start out with good intentions and get taken too far.If he's correct about the sexual revolution and other ills of liberalism (which makes him more of a reactionary than a conservative), which bits would you like to reverse?
Yes I can, thicko. You keep saying that immigration is irrelevant to the figures even though it's clear from Sweden and elsewhere that immigration, particularly Muslim immigration, is a major factor in those figures.
No, I haven't. I have never claimed that immigration is not a factor. You are an insufferably stupid man if you genuinely don't understand that by this point.
It's not just about laws. It's about how the Church of England recommends people live their lives, which, if Peter Hitchens had his way, would repress them by denying them the ability and/or right to think for themselves by prescribing certain behaviours. This was the entire basis of Christopher Hitchens' opposition to religion.
Not reversing it then. Just opposing it. You can't oppose the move towards a permissive society (as Hitchens does) because of 'modern feminism'. I don't think you oppose legalised gayness, abortion, easier divorces, and so on; so overall you must agree with it.You're making lots of assumptions here. I dislike modern feminism (of the type you brought up earlier) which was spawned from the sexual revolution. And it's pointless talking about reversing anything, it can't be done. Most things about 'rights' start out with good intentions and get taken too far.
You said it was completely insignificant. So I can deduce from that, that you don't think they're a factor.
I said the numbers used in claiming a 1457% rise were insignificant, and I've explicitly accepted that disproportionate incidences of rape by immigrant men could be a factor...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=adult+literacy+classes+hatfield
You keep bringing them both up as if I am bound to agree with them about everything they both say. I'm perfectly happy that the Church Of England is as meek as it is, but I don't think it being a bit stronger would necessarily repress anyone. Of course those who want it stronger would argue their views are being repressed.
I oppose certain aspects yes, such as all 'insert here' quotas of any kind. I didn't oppose legalised gayness and neither did Peter Hitchens. Abortion is a lot more tricky but I still just favour it. You need to stop asserting what I must agree with.Not reversing it then. Just opposing it. You can't oppose the move towards a permissive society (as Hitchens does) because of 'modern feminism'. I don't think you oppose legalised gayness, abortion, easier divorces, and so on; so overall you must agree with it.
That figure was only part of a much larger bunch of statistics. And at what figure would they become 'significant' to you? I just want to know what your line in the sand is here.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote