How is Cameron still getting away with saying that Corbyn thought that OBL's death was a "tragedy". It's clearly taken out of context and to keep repeating the statement is pretty disgraceful.
How is Cameron still getting away with saying that Corbyn thought that OBL's death was a "tragedy". It's clearly taken out of context and to keep repeating the statement is pretty disgraceful.
Well, great? At the time I responded it was the only figure you had posted and I was pointing out why it was seriously limited. All of my posts since have remained on that same topic, but you keep trying to shift to another argument because you don't want to admit you've ballsed this one up.Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
You don't have to agree with them both on 'everything', but it's difficult to sit between them on this one. Those who want it stronger are also being repressed. That is the very nature of religion as repression. It strives to tell you what you should think.
Then you don't oppose social liberalism, and all your moaning about liberals and/or liberalism is mis-directed (see: blaming it for quotas).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.
I'm afraid that is non correct. Your first response on this was simply to the link I posted, which goes into great detail about numerous stats from Sweden and other places:
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape
On what one? 'Religion' and the 'Church of England' are completely different things. I don't believe Peter Hitchens, himself, thinks he is told what to think.
As if social liberalism is one or two issues as defined by you. My issues with 'liberals' is most often aimed at those who call themselves such and attribute liberal values to themselves. If you want to agree with me that they're not really liberals at all that's fine with me.Then you don't oppose social liberalism, and all your moaning about liberals and/or liberalism is mis-directed (see: blaming it for quotas).
No, it wasn't, it was to your quoted section, which referred to the number I have repeatedly referenced.
I just checked it. Your very first post which claimed it was because of the changed laws was, I'm afraid, in response to exactly what I said it was.
If you're finally going to just stoop to outright lies I'll take my e-victory and be off to bed.
[IMG][/IMG]
If you're going to all that effort to demonstrate just how wrong you are, you might as well include your original post while you're at it.
No, I'm correct. That was the first time you brought up rape being reported in a different way. Why even bother to deny it when there's a big picture of it?
I guess you've wriggled enough to at least convince yourself.
There's nothing else needed, there's a big picture of it.
Above is your second post in response to the same article. Basically reaffirming the same point.
That second post where I say, "additional factors beyond societal changes", therefore recognising that societal changes are a factor. You're not even smart enough to lie properly.
If they're a factor then they're not 'insignificant'.
So I guess we're back to your inability to read.
So did you say the numbers of immigrants was insignificant or not? Keep in mind that I can and will screenshot again to prove you wrong (again)
I did not. If you'd like to post another screenshot demonstrating your incomprehension, be my guest.
The Church of England still has doctrine, even if it's not as potent as Peter Hitchens would like. Do they let you into Heaven if you're an atheist or a Muslim? I wouldn't have thought so. Therefore, they're telling you what to think. Whether Hitchens believes he's told what to think is irrelevant. If he chooses to follow the doctrine (even with reservations) then he is, like every other religious person that you would happily laugh at for not being a 'free thinker'.
Then (returning to the other day) you're using the wrong word. It's not 'one or two' issues. It's an entire movement that Hitchens opposes, and you selectively oppose until you don't.As if social liberalism is one or two issues as defined by you. My issues with 'liberals' is most often aimed at those who call themselves such and attribute liberal values to themselves. If you want to agree with me that they're not really liberals at all that's fine with me.
Toby, I have to ask - why do you bother?
I did not. If you'd like to post another screenshot demonstrating your incomprehension, be my guest.
In this sort of case it's amusing to watch him squirm and dig an ever more spectacular hole for himself.
I fear based on the post above that he's actually just too stupid to know what's going on though, which puts a bit of a dampener on laughing at him.
As an outsider, it's like watching an adult beat a down syndromed lad at connect four. Just utterly pointless for everyone involved.
I'm not sure if the COE believe in hell. The fact Peter can believe in such nonsense just goes to show how powerful religion can be. But I don't laugh at anyone religious by any means. That's more exaggeration on your part, I fear.
Yes, I do selectively oppose. That's because I am not a left/right person and I take things on their own merits.Then (returning to the other day) you're using the wrong word. It's not 'one or two' issues. It's an entire movement that Hitchens opposes, and you selectively oppose until you don't.
You haven't even bothered reading. I am factually correct on this and backed it up with clear evidence. Not that it would make a difference to someone like you.
The difference between you and I is that I back up everything I'm saying, while you repeatedly resort to name-calling and providing no evidence at all and, in fact, still claim to be right in the face of clear evidence.
They believe in heaven. If you don't accept their core bullshit you don't get in (whatever form that takes). That is totalitarian, even if they spend increasing amounts of their time bumming up to gays and Muslims to Peter Hitchens' annoyance, which is why his brother opposed religion.
It's not a left/right issue. It's a liberalism/authoritarianism issue, and you can't 'selectively oppose' the wider trend on the misguided belief that it has led to quotas and 'modern feminism'.Yes, I do selectively oppose. That's because I am not a left/right person and I take things on their own merits.
What's your point? I know full well what they both believe and don't believe in. This is getting a bit boring.
And what happens if I believe in one thing which is seen as 'authoritarian' and something else which is seen as 'liberal'? Do you go into meltdown? The quotas I brought up is because that is what it can lead to. I can oppose certain aspects of whatever I like, thanks.It's not a left/right issue. It's a liberalism/authoritarianism issue, and you can't 'selectively oppose' the wider trend on the misguided belief that it has led to quotas and 'modern feminism'.
E-embarrsement here.
Harold believes in liberal authoritarianism? This is a turn up for the books.
Because you said it isn't repressive, which makes you wonder why exactly you've spent so much time arguing against religion (and using Christopher Hitchens' lines to do so).
You can, but it doesn't make sense to do so. Peter Hitchens at least realises that (or maybe doesn't, but he is consistent).And what happens if I believe in one thing which is seen as 'authoritarian' and something else which is seen as 'liberal'? Do you go into meltdown? The quotas I brought up is because that is what it can lead to. I can oppose certain aspects of whatever I like, thanks.
I said it isn't necessarily repressive. And again, 'religion' is different from the Church Of England. Jainism isn't repressive and it's a religion. Most religion is repressive, but the main reason I argue against it is because it's plainly wrong and ignores evidence. In the case of Islam it's clearly dangerous.
So you think it's not possible to have authoritarian views on some issues and liberal views on another? That's ridiculous. Peter Hitchens believes in the death penalty but also does not believe in going to war under almost any circumstances and was opposed to identity cards. What scale do those views fall under, I wonder?You can, but it doesn't make sense to do so. Peter Hitchens at least realises that (or maybe doesn't, but he is consistent).
But it is if you have to go along with it to receive favour, which is the case with the Church of England (and would be more so if Peter Hitchens got his way). That is such a crap reason to oppose religion. You might as well have started all those threads having a go at Father Christmas.
It is (war isn't related to either), but you put yourself in a difficult position deriding 'liberals' (even pretend ones) when you yourself are unable to remain consistent.So you think it's not possible to have authoritarian views on some issues and liberal views on another? That's ridiculous. Peter Hitchens believes in the death penalty but also does not believe in going to war under almost any circumstances and was opposed to identity cards. What scale do those views fall under, I wonder?
And I would if the belief in Father Christmas was as widespread and led to the kind of consequences that certain religious beliefs do. I.e not the Church Of England.
I don't just 'deride liberals' in a vacuum - I deride them on certain aspects of what they believe. If you can't accept that a person can believe in some liberal views as well as some seen as authoritarian then you clearly lack imagination. Do you think Peter Hitchens is 'inconsistent' with his opposition to ID cards, he ultimate authoritarian fantasy? Maybe you should pop him an email in the 'ask an expert' mode as I'd like to see him tear you apart.It is (war isn't related to either), but you put yourself in a difficult position deriding 'liberals' (even pretend ones) when you yourself are unable to remain consistent.
So you're against religion because of 'consequences' (which I take to mean violence)? Why aren't you against all violence-inducing ideas?
And when you do you attribute it to their liberalism, like when you were blaming them for the deliberate erosion of patriotic feeling. I would think Peter Hitchens was inconsistent were he to oppose ID cards with claims that he opposes authoritarianism, but I've no idea whether he does or not. He can oppose them on their own merits.I don't just 'deride liberals' in a vacuum - I deride them on certain aspects of what they believe. If you can't accept that a person can believe in some liberal views as well as some seen as authoritarian then you clearly lack imagination. Do you think Peter Hitchens is 'inconsistent' with his opposition to ID cards, he ultimate authoritarian fantasy? Maybe you should pop him an email in the 'ask an expert' mode as I'd like to see him tear you apart.
Henn0rz using the Henn0rz smiley is just about the greatest thing to happen to the new board.
Also: Toby
Why do you take that to mean violence? I thought you were someone who paid attention to detail? I've goner into great detail in the past about which aspects of religion I find appalling and which religions are especially dangerous. The Church Of England was never something I brought up, and no, I won't fall into your poorly thought-out, attempted traps.
Yes, I've said I deride modern liberalism in most of its forms. So great, you think Peter Hitchens is inconsistent, now what? Why not confront him on it? I don't think it's inconsistent but even were it to be, so what?And when you do you attribute it to their liberalism, like when you were blaming them for the deliberate erosion of patriotic feeling. I would think Peter Hitchens was inconsistent were he to oppose ID cards with claims that he opposes authoritarianism, but I've no idea whether he does or not. He can oppose them on their own merits.
I took it to mean violence because you don't appear to be that concerned about how religions impinge on freedom of conscience. So what 'consequences' motivate your opposition to religion (I'm sure you've identified as an anti-theist in the past, but I don't think that fits if you aren't primarily concerned with religious repression)?
It's just nice to know where we all stand.Yes, I've said I deride modern liberalism in most of its forms. So great, you think Peter Hitchens is inconsistent, now what? Why not confront him on it? I don't think it's inconsistent but even were it to be, so what?
Impinging on freedom of conscience wouldn't only lead to violence. And again, 'religion' and 'the Church Of England' are two separate things.
I'm afraid I won't go around in circles.So what 'consequences' motivate your opposition to religion (I'm sure you've identified as an anti-theist in the past, but I don't think that fits if you aren't primarily concerned with religious repression)?
Don't worry, henry was as baffled as you when I said I had some left leaning ideas as well as right. You're both guilty of a lack of imagination. You obviously think in straight lines. Are you religious?It's just nice to know where we all stand.
You said that even a stronger Church of England 'would[n't] necessarily repress anyone', so you clearly don't think that the very idea of having to accept certain ideas to gain favour and go to Heaven is repressive. What is it then that you object to if not only violence?
We're more likely baffled by your mis-use and/or mis-understanding of basic terminology.Don't worry, henry was as baffled as you when I said I had some left leaning ideas as well as right. You're both guilty of a lack of imagination. You obviously think in straight lines. Are you religious?
Yes, that's correct. it would depend rather on how far it went. If it's still a religion of choice that didn't interfere in government then people who choose to follow it of their own accord wouldn't be repressed. Repression is something which comes about more through indoctrination, but that's another issue. I object to non-thinking, the rejection of clear scientific facts and many other things which I've gone over many times.
I've told you very clearly that I believe in some issues which are considered liberal and some considered more authoritarian. I couldn't be any clearer. Now answer my question, just so we know where we stand.We're more likely baffled by your mis-use and/or mis-understanding of basic terminology.
So Christopher Hitchens was wrong about religion?
I am not religious.I've told you very clearly that I believe in some issues which are considered liberal and some considered more authoritarian. I couldn't be any clearer. Now answer my question, just so we know where we stand.
No, and that doersn't fly in the face of anything I've said. Theistic religion has at its core totalitarianism. But most people don't take it a'la carte - another thing Christopher Hitchens has said. You've been trying to set up that trap all night, haven't you? You're such a bore.
Theistic religion?
Yes, problem?
I've been making the same point all night. It just came to a head with that gibberish.
I mean most people take it a'la carte, of course. Which means while it's totalitarian at its core, our great friends such as Italf...aussie would not think they are repressed in the least. Do you think he's repressed?
As opposed to?
Non theistic religions, of course.
You have to admit that does sound like something of an oxymoron.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote