To Anyone who lives in Britain.

[Cooper]

I was curious if anyone in Britian could comment on this article (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/17/warwithin.overview/index.html)? Is it as big of a thing as CNN makes it out to be? In other words, are public speakings from Muslims of this stance common? Or have you personally never heard of it before?

I'm writing a paper on free speech and compairing the different western contries.

[Nemesis6]

First off, I'm not an Englishman, but I know this much about Britain: It's the country where freedom of speech has gone wrong. Britain is the heart of Islamist sentiments in Europe, and if, God forbid, it ever goes as far as a civil war between radical Muslims and Europeans, Britain will be the first to fall because of its almost laughable level of tolerance of intolerance. Here's a very recent documentary on how mainstream these views are becoming even in "mainstream" mosques - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2668560761490749816&q=Dispatches+undercover

All the good stuff - "If she doesn't wear Hijab we hit her.", "Oh Muslim, behind me is a Jew, come and kill him!", "We have to live like a state within a state untill we take over.", "We hate the Kuffar!", and who can forget "Take that homosexual man... and throw him off the mountain!" There's just so much. Watch the documentary, it will supplement anything you write about Britain in a lot of ways.

[GiaOmerta]

Here is Abu Usamah's responce to Dispatch: Mosque Undercover. I've watched about 5 minutes of it thus far.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8048345222093348483&q=Dispatches+undercover

[Ome_Vince]

We have similar problems in Holland. Though I hope and prey moderate Muslims are the ones that kick the crap out of these extremists. Its not something Atheists, Christians, Buddhists, Hindu's etc can "fix". According to these extremists, we're all liars, including the moderate Muslims who oppose them.
However, what we can do, is allow and push the moderate Muslim community to react to this, so Muslim anger and polarization decreases => its not "us" and "them" anymore.
Then imo, what governments should do, just like when Hooligans incite riots, is pick out the trouble makers, and throw them in jail and/or out of the country (if they are not a citizen).
It works pretty good with Hooligans, why do we shield these extremist retards behind "freedom of speech".
Btw, this also goes for any religious extremist inciting intolerance and hatred. Imo a countries tolerance towards anything should end, where intolerance begins.

[15357]

Speech is a previlieage, not a right, people.

[The Monkey]

You sound like a commie, numbers.

We've had some troubles here in Sweden too. Some muslims suggesting that Sharia law should be in place for all Swedish muslims. Those comments were pretty much rejected by the whole muslim community, though.

[15357]

You sound like a commie, numbers.

We've had some troubles here in Sweden too. Some muslims suggesting that Sharia law should be in place for all Swedish muslims. Those comments were pretty much rejected by the whole muslim community, though.

How do I sound like a commie? Why do you insult me this badly?

[586FAC75]

GiaOmerta mentioned the Dispatches programme (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2668560761490749816&q=dispatches+mosque) that recently aired on UK Channel 4, that's got a few people heated up.

The current attidude? There are quite a few Imams in the country who are always whining on about how their always hard done to. You can almost set your watch by it. Their viewed as an annoyance mainly, no-one ever really takes them ultra-seriously.

Saying that though, that's how Hitler got the opportunity to piss half the world off over 6 years.

Personally, I haven't got a problem with threats to deport them if they are non-UK nationals/arrest them under public order offences for using threatening words causing harrassment, alarm or distress.

[The Monkey]

How do I sound like a commie? Why do you insult me this badly?

Freedom of speech is a born right, not a privilege given by you by the state or someone else.

[15357]

Freedom of speech is a born right, not a privilege given by you by the state or someone else.

Let's say that only you existed, or you didn't have any contact with anybody else. Where is the born right of speech, when you can't actually speak?


I'd rather be called a f*cking retarded fascist maniac than a commie, btw.

[el Chi]

That story is from Dublin which is in Ireland (Eire) not Britain. Or at least that's what it says. I think any Irish people on the board would be a tad pissed off about that piece of decidely poor journalism.
But I'm nit-picking.

The interesting thing about extremism and what people perceive to be its diffusion into "mainstream" Islam (as if it were a logical progression or a natural occurrance like some kind of socio-religious osmosis) is that it is a nasty self-perpetuating circle.

1. Muslims come to Britain and, as human beings initially stick with what they know, they go and live near other Muslims.
2. This in turn seems very exclusionist which makes non-Muslims unfamiliar with and wary of the Muslim community.
3. The Muslim community feels this and sticks together more, essentially galvanising itself at what it perceives to be a threat. They may find it harder to adjust.
4. The community becoming more tightly knit makes Islam seem increasingly alien to non-Muslims who become increasingly wary.
5. Rinse and repeat.

Throw the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq into the mix and modern British Muslims will feel more and more maligned in society and will be quicker to perceive certain things as Islamophobic or whatever.
I'm not saying one side is right over the other, I am simply showing how things have escalated to where we are now and how extremism grows and ends with vicious individuals praying on people's fears and calling for extreme cruelty.

Extremism in non-Muslims has also grown, in the form of Islamophobic violence with racist thugs intimidating and beating up anyone they think might be Muslim, encouraged by vicious individuals praying on people's fears and sewing the seeds for extreme cruelty.

I live in a very Muslim area - one of the recently -jailed attempted bombers was from near my area, and I'm a short bus ride away from the infamous Finsbury Park mosque.
Incidentally, this area also has a large Hasidic Jewish population (I'd say they're in the majority, but only slightly) and the two communities don't exactly pop 'round to one another's houses to borrow some sugar, but they co-exist well enough.
If Islam in the UK was so extreme, don't you think there would be regular religious and politically-motivated beatings of Hasidic Jews? There's lots of them - it wouldn't be too difficult to find and beat one of them up if you had enough hate in you fostered by clerics using centuries of religious conflict as a catalyst. It wouldn't be difficult as a cleric to drum up feelings of extremism if you wanted to.

But maybe I'm missing the point? Maybe random thuggery is low down on their agenda and the everyday Muslim has bigger fish to fry, so to speak.
If so, why not more terrorist attacks in the name of Allah. I have no desire to sound like I feel there should be, I merely observe that, if hatred was so commonplace, why isn't there more violence?
The bombings of the 7th of July were atrocious - I'm an atheist and so whilst I don't believe in Hell, a sadistic irrational part of me wishes there was such a plain of existence for horrific individuals such as them.
The following failed bombings a fortnight later were frightening, no doubt, but we were lucky enough that these individuals were incompetent bastards.
Before that extremely frightening month, there had been no terrorist attacks in the UK since the IRA ceasefire. It was just under four years since 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan; just over two years since the invasion of Iraq, which is a lot of time for more attacks or plots to transpire. Thankfully, they did not.
Since then, there have been none and God forbid (metaphorically speaking) there won't be more. But of course we cannot be sure of this. My point is that, if Islamic hatred within the UK was at such fever pitch, why is it that all we hear about are words. Once again I'll stress that I sincerely hope that nothing more is able to happen.

Before anyone accuses me of wearing rose-tinted glasses, as I'm sure they will, I will not deny that extremist Islam is on the rise. What with the current world situation, this is hardly surprising - we see the circle I mentioned before coming into effect.
However it is not on the rise as much as the media focusses on. As ever, we see the "If it bleeds, it leads" mentality of the news (papers, TV, etc.) inflating issues out of proportion?
Remember the BSE scare? People threw away loads of their food when they first heard about that and wouldn't eat beef for years afterwards but those affected were few, albeit with lamentable results.
The same applies here. There is a problem with certain Muslims who are hate-filled and vicious and try and infect the minds of others, but these are the ones we hear about in the news. "Muslim boy goes to mosque and later talks to white friends" doesn't sell papers. "Muslim boy turned from cricket fan to suicide bomber by extremist clerics" on the other hand, does sell papers.
In exactly the same way, "US army medic helps treat injured Iraqi civilians" doesn't capture people's attention as much as "US army medic shoots unarmed Iraqi civilians".
You, as an individual of intelligence and logical judgement, must work out for yourself which is the more commonplace occurrance, or which is more significant in the grand scheme of things.

First off, I'm not an Englishman, but I know this much about Britain: It's the country where freedom of speech has gone wrong. Britain is the heart of Islamist sentiments in Europe, and if, God forbid, it ever goes as far as a civil war between radical Muslims and Europeans, Britain will be the first to fall because of its almost laughable level of tolerance of intolerance. Here's a very recent documentary on how mainstream these views are becoming even in "mainstream" mosques - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2668560761490749816&q=Dispatches+undercover

All the good stuff - "If she doesn't wear Hijab we hit her.", "Oh Muslim, behind me is a Jew, come and kill him!", "We have to live like a state within a state untill we take over.", "We hate the Kuffar!", and who can forget "Take that homosexual man... and throw him off the mountain!" There's just so much. Watch the documentary, it will supplement anything you write about Britain in a lot of ways.Nemesis, as someone not on the ground, as it were, here in Britain I wonder where your claim as to our (by which I mean we Brits) free speech being impeded comes from?

I think when you focus on Muslims, you also forget to focus on non-Muslims.
The British National Party who are at paints to try and lay a veneer of credibility over their inherently and inescapably racist views (not to mention their Hitlerian canvassing tactics) are afforded just as much right to preach their intolerance of anyone not originally from the UK (and even citizens who were born in the UK whose parents immigrated) as the "radical" (I use inverted commas to avoid the obvious argument people will raise by trying to tell me that their views aren't radical but mainstream) Muslim clerics.
The leader, Nick Griffith, was fairly recently acquitted of incitement to racial hatred after undercover footage showed him being viciously and puganciously bigotted.

On the flip side, that infamous preacher of religious hatred and figure of much public mocking, Abu Hamza is currently imprisoned for 11 charges of incitement to racial hatred, murder, and various similar crimes and will serve just under nine years. He was in direct contradiction of free speech laws (amongst others) and as such did not get away with it - I hardly think that says Muslims are afforded more leeway.
As an aside, the verdict came soon after the aforementioned Griffith's acquittal. I only mention this to draw a contrast - if our current legal climate is so intent on appeasement for Islam, why was Hamza jailed where Griffith was set free?
Hamza has recently been told that he himself must foot the bill for the legal proceedings leading to his imprisonment which is estimated to be over ?1 million. I hardly see this as evidence that Islamic extremeists are getting away with it.

Let's say that only you existed, or you didn't have any contact with anybody else. Where is the born right of speech, when you can't actually speak?Just to double check: You're aware that that sentence makes no sense, right?

[Ome_Vince]

Well, one thing I generally disagree with is people who claim Islamic extremism is on the rise "because" of the Iraq war, 9/11, Guantanamo Bay and Afghanistan.
These things are definately large amounts of fuel but added to an already existing fire.
We also can't solely blame social group forming for the current problems, since I hardly hear from non-Islamic immigrants. In fact one of my friends is an African and surely he must have had the same social problems Arab immigrants had, yet he, and millions with him, chose to integrate with Dutch society (the guy's more Dutch than I am lol).

The problems are much bigger and global. Simply take a look at the trial-playground North Africa, thats the future. Christianity, Atheism, and Islam have been clashing their for ages, and even today, oppressive intolerant laws in those countries produce intolerant people, its no surprise.
When these people immigrate to Europe, how ignorant are we to expect them to "respect the infidels laws" while all their life and culture they've learned disbelievers lie, are inferior and Allah's laws go above all others. Lets not forget most Arab immigrants to Europe are 1st or second generation immigrants, they or their parents have literally just come from countries where all other beliefs are inferior by law and oppressed. Then we allow Imams to come directly from these intolerant countries to preach how interior the rest of us are.

This however, leads to one of the big problems we also have, which is self-Islamification.
I remember on Television only 2 months ago a documentary on a Dutch town where Islamic people were becoming the majority in population; One of the things that I was pissed about is that a local dutch-run swimming pool agreeing, after years of harassment and protest, to split into man - woman pools and forcing women to dress "appropriately".
We are voluntarily breaking down our society, bringing it back 300 years, all in the good name of "Tolerance" towards intolerant people.
This then greatly contributes to the Dutch skinhead rise, because radicalizing is the only option they see to counter this.

As i mentioned before, i firmly support the fact that tolerance should end where intolerance begins. It will decrease Islamic wacko's, Christian wacko's and skinheads.
If Christians in Holland would pop up and demand this type of crap they too need to be smacked down. Yet at the moment its mainly mass Muslim communities who are breeding off of this Dutch obsession with tolerance and its probably no different in Britain.
In short, imo by tolerating intolerance, we're not only generating Islamic extremism, but skinheads as well = polarization.

[Solaris]

What the hell?
Dublin is not in Britain, I'd expected better from an international news agency.

Edit:

I'm also going to say something which I've completely changed my mind on, a while ago I've posed here defending Islam from such reports, sticking up for the Muslim community being very liberal on such a matter. I've recently changed my mind pretty much completely.

Islam, is, imho an awful thing, it's a force which restricts individuals civil liberties, turns scholars into idiots, musicians to stop playing, countries to go to war and it motivates attacks against civilians.Now, I think the same thing applies to Christianity, Judaism and other mass-delusional beliefs but I think right now Islam is one of the most dangerous. In Christianity we have fundamentalists who create alot of damage to society, but luckily they are a minority.

The same thing however cannot be said about Islam, it is my opinion that all Muslims are fundamentalists, just some are in denial about this. There is no interpretation of the Que-ran that could allow one to claim Islam is a religion of peace, it's filled with passages telling Muslims that they will go to heaven if they kill infidels, killing non-believers is great, all non-believers should be killed ect. I must admit, I'd heard such quotations before, but believed they were in a minority and taken out of context but in Sam Harris's book the end of faith I was confronted with 5 pages of quotations all telling Muslims that killing non-believers is good, I was absolutely shocked.

After a lot of thinking, further reading ect. I'm pretty confident that Islam is no friend of mine. I also have a lot of freinds who are Muslims, questioning these people about the Que-ran leads to me learning that they never knew it contained some phrases and were probably over-ruled somewhere. Muslims think a book, filled with more calls to genocide than Mein Kampf is the perfect word of god?

I truly fear a Muslim Majority in this country, are there any Secular societies where Muslims are the majority? Or where people even have basic freedoms that are respected by the government? If we look at all states ruled by Islamcsists we see women being killed for non wearing the hijhab, no freedom of religion, unfair, unethical religious laws. I mean, sure one could make the case, as I used to, that in the UK Muslims are very tolerant of our views, but what minority isn't?

[CptStern]

Just to double check: You're aware that that sentence makes no sense, right?




it's a riddle el chi ..like "what's the sound of one hand clapping" or "what would free speech sound like if you were mute?" or "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?" or "if I curtail your freedom will you be as free as South koreans?"



great post btw good to see a rational perspective on things for a change :)

[kirovman]

Dublin, England?

Oh, you mean like Bangalore, England? ;)

[Nemesis6]

Cough - http://video.google.com/url?vidurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-4283987610134255997%26q%3DDirty%2BKuffar&docid=-4283987610134255997&ev=v&esrc=sr2&usg=AL29H21I2TqoHxjkL3YZHyX83QUSAqXqvg

"The Mr Tony Blair him a dirty kuffar the one Mr Bush him a dirty kuffar the National Front them a dirty kuffar throw them in the fire!" Catchy tune, huh, UK? Enjoy it, because at this rate, you'll have to get used to it.

[Kadayi]

First off, I'm not an Englishman, but I know this much about Britain: It's the country where freedom of speech has gone wrong. Britain is the heart of Islamist sentiments in Europe, and if, God forbid, it ever goes as far as a civil war between radical Muslims and Europeans, Britain will be the first to fall because of its almost laughable level of tolerance of intolerance. Here's a very recent documentary on how mainstream these views are becoming even in "mainstream" mosques - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2668560761490749816&q=Dispatches+undercover

All the good stuff - "If she doesn't wear Hijab we hit her.", "Oh Muslim, behind me is a Jew, come and kill him!", "We have to live like a state within a state untill we take over.", "We hate the Kuffar!", and who can forget "Take that homosexual man... and throw him off the mountain!" There's just so much. Watch the documentary, it will supplement anything you write about Britain in a lot of ways.

What utter utter BS. Nemesis, you really do have to cease pushing your agenda against the muslims, it's getting pretty tiresome. Perhaps it's time you and your stooge went and found another bulletin board to promote Israels POV upon. Given the near absence of Gaming posts either of you make, it's clear neither of you come here for gaming purposes unlike the rest of us.

The UK is actually pretty down to earth about things, and tend to look at issues from a practical perspective. Where people have incited racial hate, they have generally been either deported or imprisioned. As for favouring Muslims:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6179842.stm

there weren't massive demonstations or flag burning over that incident.

[repiV]

What the hell?
Dublin is not in Britain, I'd expected better from an international news agency.

Edit:

I'm also going to say something which I've completely changed my mind on, a while ago I've posed here defending Islam from such reports, sticking up for the Muslim community being very liberal on such a matter. I've recently changed my mind pretty much completely.

Islam, is, imho an awful thing, it's a force which restricts individuals civil liberties, turns scholars into idiots, musicians to stop playing, countries to go to war and it motivates attacks against civilians.Now, I think the same thing applies to Christianity, Judaism and other mass-delusional beliefs but I think right now Islam is one of the most dangerous. In Christianity we have fundamentalists who create alot of damage to society, but luckily they are a minority.

The same thing however cannot be said about Islam, it is my opinion that all Muslims are fundamentalists, just some are in denial about this. There is no interpretation of the Que-ran that could allow one to claim Islam is a religion of peace, it's filled with passages telling Muslims that they will go to heaven if they kill infidels, killing non-believers is great, all non-believers should be killed ect. I must admit, I'd heard such quotations before, but believed they were in a minority and taken out of context but in Sam Harris's book the end of faith I was confronted with 5 pages of quotations all telling Muslims that killing non-believers is good, I was absolutely shocked.

After a lot of thinking, further reading ect. I'm pretty confident that Islam is no friend of mine. I also have a lot of freinds who are Muslims, questioning these people about the Que-ran leads to me learning that they never knew it contained some phrases and were probably over-ruled somewhere. Muslims think a book, filled with more calls to genocide than Mein Kampf is the perfect word of god?

I truly fear a Muslim Majority in this country, are there any Secular societies where Muslims are the majority? Or where people even have basic freedoms that are respected by the government? If we look at all states ruled by Islamcsists we see women being killed for non wearing the hijhab, no freedom of religion, unfair, unethical religious laws. I mean, sure one could make the case, as I used to, that in the UK Muslims are very tolerant of our views, but what minority isn't?

Woah. I knew it would happen, I just didn't realise it would be so soon. *clap*

By the way numbers, you really do sound like a ****ing commie. It's comical.

[repiV]

What utter utter BS. Nemesis, you really do have to cease pushing your agenda against the muslims, it's getting pretty tiresome. Perhaps it's time you and your stooge went and found another bulletin board to promote Israels POV upon. Given the near absence of Gaming posts either of you make, it's clear neither of you come here for gaming purposes unlike the rest of us.

The UK is actually pretty down to earth about things, and tend to look at issues from a practical perspective. Where people have incited racial hate, they have generally been either deported or imprisioned. As for favouring Muslims:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6179842.stm

there weren't massive demonstations or flag burning over that incident.

Posting in the politics forum to complain about someone posting in the politics forum? :rolleyes:

[Kadayi]

Personally I'm no fan of Islam as it presently exists as I believe that it is essential for the Muslim world to make a clear seperation between religion and state, just as the Christian nations have done, especially with regard to operation and law. However I have no tolerance for people whose agenda is simply to spread misinformation regarding muslims to promote distrust and suspicion.

[repiV]

When their agenda is simply to spread misinformation why not.

I've never seen you offer a valid or substantial counter-argument to anything Nemesis has said, nor anything I have said. Statements that don't fit your infantile view of the world are not the same thing is misinformation.
Nemesis' "agenda", I assume, as is mine, is to get people to wake up to reality. It seems to be working - Solaris has been converted. Your turn next.

[Kadayi]

Being a 21 year old junior in a london recruitment office I'm sure you see lots of reality. :dozey:

[repiV]

Being a 21 year old junior in a london recruitment office I'm sure you see lots of reality. :dozey:

I've billed over ?5000 in my first two and a half weeks, a reality the likes of which you will never see. I'm close to making company history.
So, how old are you and what do you do? You never did actually tell me. I bet you're still doing your GCSEs. Nothing else would explain why you choose to constantly refer to what I do and what I earn as a rebuttal. I think it's jealousy.

[DaMaN]

I've billed over ?5000 in my first two and a half weeks, a reality the likes of which you will never see. I'm close to making company history.
So, how old are you and what do you do? You never did actually tell me. I bet you're still doing your GCSEs. Nothing else would explain why you choose to constantly refer to what I do and what I earn as a rebuttal. I think it's jealousy.
Really? I had no idea that the amount of money you made was directly proportional to the amount of reality you see.

If that's the case Bill Gates must be the most down-to-Earth person there is...

[Kadayi]

36 year old, well travelled, architectural design professional, recently remarried with 2 children (1 former, 1 latter) seeks amusement by ridiculing muslim hating fools on gaming boards, in between looking at relevant gaming news.

[repiV]

Really? I had no idea that the amount of money you made was directly proportional to the amount of reality you see.

If that's the case Bill Gates must be the most down-to-Earth person there is...

Why don't you direct your comment towards the person who used my age and line of work - a line of work that is suitable only for pragmatic, results-driven people who get out there and make things happen - as an argument for me not understanding reality?
I mean, WTF?

[Pi Mu Rho]

I've never seen you offer a valid or substantial counter-argument to anything Nemesis has said, nor anything I have said. Statements that don't fit your infantile view of the world are not the same thing is misinformation.
Nemesis' "agenda", I assume, as is mine, is to get people to wake up to reality. It seems to be working - Solaris has been converted. Your turn next.

I like the way you define your opinion as "reality" and feel the need to try to "convert" people. Sounds like fundamentalism to me.

[repiV]

36 year old, well travelled, architectural design professional, recently remarried with 2 children (1 former, 1 latter) seeks amusement by ridiculing muslim hating fools on gaming boards.

Sorry, a moment ago you were chastising Nemesis for coming to gaming boards to discuss politics. Now you proudly claim that you come to gaming boards to make childish comments in political threads. You ain't that bright, are you?
You've still yet to make any kind of coherent argument, and there are people on these forums who aren't even adults yet that come across as a lot older than you.

[repiV]

I like the way you define your opinion as "reality" and feel the need to try to "convert" people. Sounds like fundamentalism to me.

Where did I say anything about my opinion? And where was the small print that said you had to take the word "convert" literally? :rolleyes:

[Kadayi]

It's fundamentally flawed, that's for sure. Given my age I'm hoping he'll realise I'm past converting.:angel:

RepIV, your jedi mind tricks won't work on me boy :dozey:

[repiV]

It's fundamentally flawed, that's for sure. Given my age I'm hoping he'll realise I'm past converting.:angel:

How can your opinions possibly be valid, if they are permanently fixed and unchangeable by time and experience?

[Pi Mu Rho]

Where did I say anything about my opinion? And where was the small print that said you had to take the word "convert" literally? :rolleyes:

Oh please, don't try and argue semantics with me.

[DaMaN]

How can your opinions possibly be valid, if they are permanently fixed and unchangeable by time and experience?
An opinion is a person's ideas and thoughts towards something. It is an assessment, judgment or evaluation of something. Whether it changes or not does not affect its validity.

[repiV]

Oh please, don't try and argue semantics with me.

Semantics?
Comparing my post to fundamentalism is possibly the most ludicrous thing I've heard this week. It's got nothing to do with semantics.

[repiV]

An opinion is a person's ideas and thoughts towards something. It is an assessment, judgment or evaluation of something. Whether it changes or not does not affect its validity.

Reality is ever-changing. If your opinion never changes, as reality does, then it is by definition based on inadequate or inaccurate information, pre-conceived notions rather than facts, and is therefore invalid.

[Pi Mu Rho]

It has everything to do with semantics.

get people to wake up to reality.

Are you the arbiter of reality now?



It seems to be working - Solaris has been converted. Your turn next.

Reality is ever-changing. If your opinion never changes, as reality does, then it is by definition based on inadequate or inaccurate information, pre-conceived notions rather than facts, and is therefore invalid.

http://www.freesearch.co.uk/dictionary/opinion

[repiV]

It has everything to do with semantics.



Are you the arbiter of reality now?

Oh, wait - nevermind that Kadayaki Polokov initially accused Nemesis of having an agenda of spreading misinformation. Is he the arbiter of reality?

Right, and it never once occured to you that I was being facetious with the "conversion" comment? The first and last thing that came to mind was that I'm a holy crusader out on a mission to convert the infidels? Jesus Christ...

[DaMaN]

Reality is ever-changing. If your opinion never changes, as reality does, then it is by definition based on inadequate or inaccurate information, pre-conceived notions rather than facts, and is therefore invalid.
An opinion is not a fact, because opinions are either not falsifiable, or the opinion has not been proven or verified.

[repiV]

http://www.freesearch.co.uk/dictionary/opinion

So everyone's opinion is valid?
In that case, I believe the world is made of cheese and giant mushrooms, and don't you even dare to challenge me on that...

[DaMaN]

So everyone's opinion is valid?
In that case, I believe the world is made of cheese and giant mushrooms, and don't you even dare to challenge me on that...
OK.

[repiV]

An opinion is not a fact, because opinions are either not falsifiable, or the opinion has not been proven or verified.

And that's the perfect excuse for you to spread your communist and pro-Islamic propaganda without regards to the facts.

[DaMaN]

And that's the perfect excuse for you to spread your communist and pro-Islamic propaganda without regards to the facts.
Opinions can be challenged, but they can be neither right nor wrong.

[DaMaN]

So everyone's opinion is valid?
In that case, I believe the world is made of cheese and giant mushrooms, and don't you even dare to challenge me on that...
You feel free to challenge other peoples opinions, but you don't want your own challenged?

Opinions can be challenged, but they can be neither right nor wrong.

[Pi Mu Rho]

Oh, wait - nevermind that Kadayaki Polokov initially accused Nemesis of having an agenda of spreading misinformation. Is he the arbiter of reality?

Right, and it never once occured to you that I was being facetious with the "conversion" comment? The first and last thing that came to mind was that I'm a holy crusader out on a mission to convert the infidels? Jesus Christ...

And it never occurred to you that I was being facetious with my "fundamentalist" comment?

Some people take things waaay too seriously.

[DaMaN]

And it never occurred to you that I was being facetious with my "fundamentalist" comment?

Some people take things waaay too seriously.
Agreed.

[repiV]

Opinions can be challenged, but they can be neither right nor wrong.

Complete and utter bollocks. I'm lost for words as to the lunacy of that statement.

[repiV]

And it never occurred to you that I was being facetious with my "fundamentalist" comment?

Some people take things waaay too seriously.

Damn - you got me there. :D

[Kadayi]

The term reality can only ever be applied to what has happened, because what is to come is not a reality, it is only a possibility.

[repiV]

The term reality can only ever be applied to what has happened, because what is to come is not a reality, it is only a possibility.

If I let go of a brick, I can tell you for certain that it's going to hit the ground.

[Kadayi]

If I let go of a brick, I can tell you for certain that it's going to hit the ground.

Don't mistake probability for certainty.

[DaMaN]

Complete and utter bollocks. I'm lost for words as to the lunacy of that statement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion

An opinion is not a fact.

An opinion is a belief.

Beliefs cannot be wrong, as they are not a fact. (You can believe that the earth is flat as much as you want)

Beliefs can be challenged. (I can say, you believing in the Earth being flat is preposterous)

Thus, opinions can be challenged, but they can be neither right nor wrong.

[DaMaN]

If I let go of a brick, I can tell you for certain that it's going to hit the ground.
No you can't. Can you say for certain that the ground will be there when the brick reaches it? No, you can't.

But this is getting into philosophy. In which case, perhaps halflife2.net needs a philosophy board to go along with the politics board.

[repiV]

Don't mistake probability for certainty.

No, it will hit the ground. The only way for it not to do so would be for it to somehow go from a freefall descent to breaking the earth's orbit - and I can assure you that would never happen.

[repiV]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion

An opinion is not a fact.

An opinion is a belief.

Beliefs cannot be wrong, as they are not a fact. (You can believe that the earth is flat as much as you want, but it doesn't make it so)

Beliefs can be challenged. (I can say, you believing in the Earth being flat is preposterous)

You really are mind-bendingly pedantic, aren't you? To put it politely.
Yes, you can say that me believing in the earth being flat is preposterous, rightly so because that belief is rooted in ignorance of the facts and therefore wrong.

[DaMaN]

No, it will hit the ground. The only way for it not to do so would be for it to somehow go from a freefall descent to breaking the earth's orbit - and I can assure you that would never happen.
Can you say for certain that the ground will be there when the brick reaches it? No, you can't.

Can you say for certain that someone will catch the brick before it hits the earth? No, you can't. Can you say for certain that there is absolutely positively ZERO chance of some absolutely crazy thing happening (like the universe ceasing to exist or gravity changing direction) that would prevent the brick hitting the earth? Nope.

This is getting into philosophy. In which case, perhaps halflife2.net needs a philosophy board to go along with the politics board.

[repiV]

No you can't. Can you say for certain that the ground will be there when the brick reaches it? No, you can't.

But this is getting into philosophy. In which case, perhaps halflife2.net needs a philosophy board to go along with the politics board.

I really don't have time for your evidently ultra-abstract brand of philosophy which gives due consideration to absurd possibilities that are irrelevant and, at any given moment, statistically impossible.
How does that line of thinking accomplish any damn thing?

[DaMaN]

I really don't have time for your evidently ultra-abstract brand of philosophy which gives due consideration to absurd possibilities that are irrelevant and, at any given moment, statistically impossible.
Yet you have time for posting on a politics board in a gaming forum.

[repiV]

Yet you have time for posting on a politics board in a gaming forum.

Yes, because politics is actually relevant to the real world. Trying to demonstrate that a belief can not technically be right or wrong or questioning the inevitability of basic physics is nothing but a pointless waste of time.

[Kadayi]

No, it will hit the ground. The only way for it not to do so would be for it to somehow go from a freefall descent to breaking the earth's orbit - and I can assure you that would never happen.

Oh it's highly probable that it will hit the ground, there is a huge amount of precedent behind it doing so, but there is no certainty within the realm of physics that it actually will do so, as DaMaN rightly points out. Any Physics Professor will say the same.

[Kadayi]

But this is getting into philosophy. In which case, perhaps halflife2.net needs a philosophy board to go along with the politics board.

I like that suggestion. Philosophy is good for the soul :cheers:

[repiV]

Oh it's highly probable that it will hit the ground, there is a huge amount of precedent behind it doing so, but there is no certainty within the realm of physics that it actually will do so.

If you've designed some kind of super magic brick which can propel itself outside of this planet's gravitational pull, I'd love to see it.

[DaMaN]

Yes, because politics is actually relevant to the real world. Trying to demonstrate that a belief can not technically be right or wrong or questioning the inevitability of basic physics is nothing but a pointless waste of time.
Since belief is at the core of every single religion and used in every single opinion, I'd say it has relavence to the real world. Questioning the inevitability of basic physics has brought us special relativity and quantum physics, both of which have aided cell-phones, sattellites, GPS, etc., which have applications in the real world.

Hence, no waste of time.

[DaMaN]

If you've designed some kind of super magic brick which can propel itself outside of this planet's gravitational pull, I'd love to see it.
"Basic" Quantum physics: there is a probability, no matter how minute, of all the molecules of your perfectly ordinary brick becomming delocalized and ending up on the other side of the universe. Admitedly the probability is infintesimally small, but even a very small probability means that the event is not certain (or 100% probability).

[DaMaN]

You really are mind-bendingly pedantic, aren't you? To put it politely.
Yes, you can say that me believing in the earth being flat is preposterous, rightly so because that belief is rooted in ignorance of the facts and therefore wrong.
Then please show me the facts behind your opinion that "Islam is evil and should be banned from the world" (or whatever it is).

As far as I know, our goal is not to discuss baseless opinions. Most of us want opinions backed by fact or backed by logic that has been backed by fact.

Basically this entire page and previous page was you arguing that someone's opinion is invalid. As I have stated, an opinion cannot be invalid because an opinion is a belief.

IMHO, Christianity is just as lethal as Islam. IMHO, we should just bannish all religions. But that's my OPINION, and it is just as VALID as your OPINION.

[repiV]

Since belief is at the core of every single religion and used in every single opinion, I'd say it has relavence to the real world.


If you don't even have the confidence in yourself to assert that some of your beliefs are right, or the conviction to see anyone else as being wrong, I question your value in this world in which our very existence is defined by what people have thought to be right and wrong.
If you are unable to assign validity to beliefs, then you can only exist in a social and moral vacuum.


Questioning the inevitability of basic physics has brought us special relativity and quantum physics, both of which have aided cell-phones, sattellites, GPS, etc., which have applications in the real world.

Hence, no waste of time.

When you find your gravity-defying breakthrough, do let me know.

[repiV]

"Basic" Quantum physics: there is a probability, no matter how minute, of all the molecules of your perfectly ordinary brick becomming delocalized and ending up on the other side of the universe. Admitedly the probability is infintesimally small, but even a very small probability means that the event is not certain (or 100% probability).

It's many times more certain than it needs to be.

[Kadayi]

If it wasn't for Philosophy, Science wouldn't even have come about. It was only through the questioning of things that our forefathers took it upon themselves to begin to try and understand the nature of reality and of themselves.

[DaMaN]

It's many times more certain than it needs to be.
So you mean to say that a probability of
99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999%
is more certain than a probability of 100%?

[repiV]

Then please show me the facts behind your opinion that "Islam is evil and should be banned from the world" (or whatever it is).

As far as I know, our goal is not to discuss baseless opinions. Most of us want opinions backed by fact or backed by logic that has been backed by fact.

Basically this entire page and previous page was you arguing that someone's opinion is invalid. As I have stated, an opinion cannot be invalid because an opinion is a belief.

IMHO, Christianity is just as lethal as Islam. IMHO, we should just bannish all religions. But that's my OPINION, and it is just as VALID as your OPINION.

Banned from the world? Yes, because as you know I'm such the idealist that I advocate a global ban in a divided world...
What's the point in substantiating any of my opinions to you, if nothing I say will never alter the validity of that opinion? Talk about a waste of time.
According to you, the belief that Iraq had WMD and was an imminent threat to the whole of Western civilisation is equally as valid as any other opinion on Iraq - yet you spend so much time debating that subject...
Really, you're a conundrum of conflicting and irrelevant nonsense.

[repiV]

So you mean to say that a probability of
99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999%
is more certain than a probability of 100%?

No, I'm saying that it doesn't ****ing matter one little bit.

[Kadayi]

It's many times more certain than it needs to be.

Seriously, email Steven Hawking :-

S.W.Hawking@damtp.cam.ac.uk <S.W.Hawking@damtp.cam.ac.uk>

http://www.hawking.org.uk/home/hindex.html

and see whether he says it's certain the brick will hit the floor.

[DaMaN]

Seriously, email Steven Hawking :-

S.W.Hawking@damtp.cam.ac.uk <S.W.Hawking@damtp.cam.ac.uk>

http://www.hawking.org.uk/home/hindex.html

and see whether he says it's certain the brick will hit the floor.
Excellent suggestion!

[DaMaN]

No, I'm saying that it doesn't ****ing matter one little bit.
Ah, but it does!!

It matters
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000001%!

That certainly IS one little bit!

But seriously, email Steven Hawking.

[repiV]

Seriously, email Steven Hawking :-

S.W.Hawking@damtp.cam.ac.uk <S.W.Hawking@damtp.cam.ac.uk>

http://www.hawking.org.uk/home/hindex.html

and see whether he says it's certain the brick will hit the floor.

Why?
Your mental masturbation doesn't change the fact that every solid object ever thrown into the air by any man in the history of humankind has eventually come down again.
Seriously, your ferocity in defending your pointless arguments makes my head bleed. "Oh, but it COULD happen! It never will, but the POSSIBILITY is there..."
So what?

[repiV]

Ah, but it does!!

It matters
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000001%!

That certainly IS one little bit!

But seriously, email Steven Hawking.

I bet you're the life and soul of the party...

[Solaris]

There's a chance, according to quantam phsyics that the earth will just disapear. Amazigngly small, but a chance.

[Ome_Vince]

wtf :P i come back and there's 4 pages of DaMan-RepiV and Polokov :P

[repiV]

There's a chance, according to quantam phsyics that the earth will just disapear. Amazigngly small, but a chance.

Yeah - but it's the most bloody pointless discussion in the world. It accomplishes absolutely nothing, except maybe to make people feel smart for mastering all the minute, arbitrary technical details of the issue - whilst completely ignoring what actually matters.
If anything, this kind of viewpoint is obstructive to actually getting anything worthwhile done.

[Kadayi]

wtf :P i come back and there's 4 pages of DaMan-RepiV and Polokov :P

You love it ;)

anyhows and more importantly what's your stance on the brick? Do you believe that the brick will hit the floor beyond doubt? :naughty:

[Kadayi]

I'm also wondering if the bricks nationality might have an impact upon it's performance...I mean an Israeli Brick might well stop a Palestinian brick from hitting the floor...

[repiV]

I'm also wondering if the bricks religion might have an impact upon it's performance...

A Christian brick will start to rise slowly towards the heavens, then come abruptly crashing down as even the mightiest of Jesus freaks fail to meet the standards set by him.

A Buddhist brick will levitate indefinitely in peaceful meditation.

A Hindu brick will fall at different speeds depending on what caste it belongs to.

A Muslim brick will spontaneously combust.

[DaMaN]

Why?
Your mental masturbation doesn't change the fact that every solid object ever thrown into the air by any man in the history of humankind has eventually come down again.
Just to really tick you off, the Voyager spacecraft were thrown into the air by man has not come down again and there's a very good chance it won't. :)

I bet you're the life and soul of the party...
How did you know?

[DaMaN]

A Christian brick will start to rise slowly towards the heavens, then come abruptly crashing down as even the mightiest of Jesus freaks fail to meet the standards set by him.

A Buddhist brick will levitate indefinitely in peaceful meditation.

A Hindu brick will fall at different speeds depending on what caste it belongs to.

A Muslim brick will spontaneously combust.
Seeing as the Muslim religion is still practiced by many people, I would tend to disagree with your final conclusion.

All the other religious bricks look about right though...

[repiV]

Just to really tick you off, the Voyager spacecraft were thrown into the air by man has not come down again and there's a very good chance it won't. :)


No, it wasn't thrown into the air. It was launched into space.


How did you know?

I'm the one who turned you down last week...it was a real blow to your ego...

[repiV]

Seeing as the Muslim religion is still practiced by many people, I would tend to disagree with your final conclusion.

All the other religious bricks look about right though...

It was a reference to suicide bombers. It's supposed to be funny. :hmph:

[Solaris]

****ing hell this thread is dire.

[repiV]

It was good back on page one. I'm glad you saw sense. :thumbs:

[Beerdude26]

So what does an atheist brick do? Say it doesn't exist? :p

[repiV]

So what does an atheist brick do? Say it doesn't exist? :p

It depends. Atheist bricks can be hard to figure out, but this new breed of atheist brick has a tendency to worship the Muslim brick and attack the Christian brick.

[Kadayi]

There is a clear lack of discussion about the Jewish Brick here...

[Aenama]

from all Religions Jews are the most harmless imo.
They don't try to convert anybody.

[KagePrototype]

*blink*

Buh?

[Ome_Vince]

You love it ;)

anyhows and more importantly what's your stance on the brick? Do you believe that the brick will hit the floor beyond doubt? :naughty:

hehe, well imo the brick has hit already, on some of the forum people's head :P ;)

[Pi Mu Rho]

We definitely don't need a philosophy forum. One forum full of people talking shite is more than enough.

[DaMaN]

We definitely don't need a philosophy forum. One forum full of people talking shite is more than enough.
true dat

[Solaris]

Oh my.

Make a philosophy forum!
The hilarity!!

[15357]

Woah. I knew it would happen, I just didn't realise it would be so soon. *clap*

By the way numbers, you really do sound like a ****ing commie. It's comical.

You need some serious verification of ideology. *charges tazer*

[kirovman]

I think he's refering to when you said:

"Speech is a previlieage, not a right, people."

Sounds like something Long John-Il would say.

[repiV]

If other South Koreans are as deranged as numbers, it would certainly explain why so many EFL teachers go crazy after spending time there...

[Nemesis6]

Kadayi, your critique of my post is like the Islamists posting comments to anti-Islamist videos; They cannot actually attack what they have seen, so they attack the messenger.

There are 4 guilty parties when it comes to Islamism - The Islamists themselves, the Government(s) that have created them, the people blindly excusing it, and the people who turn their backs to the three beforementioned.

[Kadayi]

You tried painting britain as some Muslim warzone, which is laughably far from the truth. I put more faith in the BBC news (or Channel 4 for that matter) regarding the state of the nation than a few dodgy google videos. Yes there are extremists out there, but given the complete lack of muslim kick back at the school assistants dismissal over the veil incident it doesn't seem we are the hotbed of racial tensions you seek to portray.

[el Chi]

Islam, is, imho an awful thing, it's a force which restricts individuals civil liberties, turns scholars into idiots, musicians to stop playing, countries to go to war and it motivates attacks against civilians.Now, I think the same thing applies to Christianity, Judaism and other mass-delusional beliefs but I think right now Islam is one of the most dangerous. In Christianity we have fundamentalists who create alot of damage to society, but luckily they are a minority.
Said minority also - frighteningly often - happen to be the ones with their fingers on the proverbial big red button.

What you have to take into account is this:
Which is worse - brain-washing others into blowing themselves up and try to take as many people with you as you can, or sitting behind a desk and authorising military action that you know will kill thousands and thousands of civilians.

I'm not going to say one is worse than the other, but I will say that I think people get blind-sighted by politicians as part of due process which, for some reason, legitimises slaughter.
If terrorists got their hands on a couple of fighter jets, say, and dropped bombs on major cities, the outcry, fear and fury would be far beyond that which people expend on the same, done by a politician's order, and bought with public money.

The same thing however cannot be said about Islam, it is my opinion that all Muslims are fundamentalists, just some are in denial about this. There is no interpretation of the Que-ran that could allow one to claim Islam is a religion of peace, it's filled with passages telling Muslims that they will go to heaven if they kill infidels, killing non-believers is great, all non-believers should be killed ect
As with all religious texts, it's about interpretations and about picking and choosing. There's lots of stuff in the Bible that people now ignore and they are not fundamentalists. The same goes for Islam.

Once again, I'm not trying to sound like an apologist because I think religion is by and large silly and retrogressive, but I do think that the media's broad-brush has infected the public at large and, when there's a lot of racial tension and suspicion as it is, we need to do away with certain stereotypes and think rationally. If just for the sake of co-existence.

I also have a lot of freinds who are Muslims, questioning these people about the Que-ran leads to me learning that they never knew it contained some phrases and were probably over-ruled somewhere.
As I said; picking and choosing.
The reason they hadn't heard about those passages was because no-one had ever taught them about it because it is not relevant to most modern Muslims.

[repiV]

Said minority also - frighteningly often - happen to be the ones with their fingers on the proverbial big red button.

What you have to take into account is this:
Which is worse - brain-washing others into blowing themselves up and try to take as many people with you as you can, or sitting behind a desk and authorising military action that you know will kill thousands and thousands of civilians.

I'm not going to say one is worse than the other, but I will say that I think people get blind-sighted by politicians as part of due process which, for some reason, legitimises slaughter.
If terrorists got their hands on a couple of fighter jets, say, and dropped bombs on major cities, the outcry, fear and fury would be far beyond that which people expend on the same, done by a politician's order, and bought with public money.


That's a stupid comparison. We do not target innocent civilians. I shouldn't even have to expand on that point.


The reason they hadn't heard about those passages was because no-one had ever taught them about it because it is not relevant to most modern Muslims.

What's a "modern" Muslim?

[jondy]

That's a stupid comparison. We do not target innocent civilians. I shouldn't even have to expand on that point.

Good deeds and good intentions, mate... we've racked up over 50,000 dead innocents over there, whether we 'targeted' them or not.

[Ome_Vince]

El Chi, while you have a point, dont overlook that most Muslim immigrants either themselves or their parents came from countries which were under Sharia or similar social laws and traditions. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia)

Because of their lack in proper unbiased education they look upon non-Muslims traditionally as dhimmis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi)
While its not black & white, its not surprising such polarization happens on such a scale.
Perhaps after several more generations and integration programs things will calm down, but as it is now, international politics, mixed with wars and the ignorant "tolerating of intolerance" by a lot of countries prevents this from happening.

[repiV]

Good deeds and good intentions, mate... we've racked up over 50,000 dead innocents over there, whether we 'targeted' them or not.

Civilians die in war. That is an unavoidable fact. Our fighter pilots are even trained to abort their bombing runs if striking the target at that moment in time would kill civilians unnecessarily. To draw a moral equvialence between attacking military or industrial targets and accidentally killing civilians and targeting civilians is not far from having no moral compass at all.
Furthermore, the majority of those dead innocents were killed by terrorists, not by us.

[jondy]

Civilians die in war. That is an unavoidable fact. Our fighter pilots are even trained to abort their bombing runs if striking the target at that moment in time would kill civilians unnecessarily.

Good intentions, I'm sure - fact remains, large numbers of civilians die, which if you want to play 'moral compass' games, is unavoidably abhorrent

To draw a moral equvialence between attacking military or industrial targets and accidentally killing civilians and targeting civilians is not far from having no moral compass at all.

I didn't. I'm just pointing out that the moral dichotomy you seem to believe exists between military and terrorist deaths is a little greyer that you might think.

Furthermore, the majority of those dead innocents were killed by terrorists, not by us.

That's fair enough. Cut the number in half, or even a quarter. How low does the number of deaths get before the situation is legitimised? The 'worse than us' argument doesn't work.

[repiV]

Good intentions, I'm sure - fact remains, large numbers of civilians die, which if you want to play 'moral compass' games, is unavoidably abhorrent


Common law is based primarily on intent for a reason.


I didn't. I'm just pointing out that the moral dichotomy you seem to believe exists between military and terrorist deaths is a little greyer that you might think.


There's nothing grey about the distinction between accidentally killing someone and intending to do so.


That's fair enough. Cut the number in half, or even a quarter. How low does the number of deaths get before the situation is legitimised? The 'worse than us' argument doesn't work.

Many people would have you believe that all of those deaths are our fault.

[jondy]

Common law is based primarily on intent for a reason.

'Common law' doesn't apply during wartime.

There's nothing grey about the distinction between accidentally killing someone and intending to do so.

That description doesn't do the situation justice. I don't want to start hypothesising situations, because it would derail the debate, but the army/government/whatever went into that war knowing there'd be heavy civilian losses, knowing that they're an inescapable part of insurgent warfare.

This is where the grey line lies, and I'm simply stating that polarising the morality of the situation is a poor call.

Many people would have you believe that all of those deaths are our fault.

Those people don't include me.

[repiV]

'Common law' doesn't apply during wartime.


Indeed not, but it's a good indicator of morality.


That description doesn't do the situation justice. I don't want to start hypothesising situations, because it would derail the debate, but the army/government/whatever went into that war knowing there'd be heavy civilian losses, knowing that they're an inescapable part of insurgent warfare.


Civilian losses (and in fact, losses in general) in Iraq are TAME compared to other wars this century. In relative terms, Iraq is a non-event. 39 million civilians lost their lives in World War 2, as well as 24 million soldiers (80% of them Allied, incidentally).
Over 1000 were killed in the Falklands war, which only lasted about a month. We lost over double the amount of troops in the Falklands than we have during this entire conflict. Puts it into perspective a little, no?
It's just that media coverage of conflict these days can bring the reality of war to the general public. A reality that most people never knew or understood, and it seems, assume did not apply to earlier wars.


This is where the grey line lies, and I'm simply stating that polarising the morality of the situation is a poor call.


I'm not saying warfare is righteous, but el Chi was basically drawing equivalance between military forces and terrorist groups.


Those people don't include me.

I never said they did. :)

[Ome_Vince]

I think in Iraq's case what makes it low on the moral ladder, is that Bush knew there were no WMD's and his administration lied there way into Iraq, using the deep anger of the US people after 9/11.
If i were American I'd be pretty pissed my government lied to me, and used my anger to invade some country, where more of my fellow countrymen each day will die still based on a cardhouse of lies.

This however, is a separate issue, and is not the cause of Islamists and/or immigration issues. At most its a nice bucket of fuel on an already existing fire.

[jondy]

Indeed not, but it's a good indicator of morality.

Hehe, that's another debate, I'll let that rest.

Civilian losses (and in fact, losses in general) in Iraq are TAME compared to other wars this century. In relative terms, Iraq is a non-event. 39 million civilians lost their lives in World War 2, as well as 24 million soldiers (80% of them Allied, incidentally).
Over 1000 were killed in the Falklands war, which only lasted about a month. We lost over double the amount of troops in the Falklands than we have during this entire conflict. Puts it into perspective a little, no?
It's just that media coverage of conflict these days can bring the reality of war to the general public. A reality that most people never knew or understood, and it seems, assume did not apply to earlier wars.

The perspective you're applying here with regards to WWII isn't really relevant here. The nature of warfare 60 years ago was very different, the scale was very different - and I've got strong issues with Thatcher's war as well, but we'll say no more about that.

The world we live in now, and as you rightly point out, the way wars are dealt with in the media, means that if you're the aggressor nation, you'd better be damned sure you look before you leap, and make sure any foreseen 'accidents' are worth the risk.

I'm not saying warfare is righteous, but el Chi was basically drawing equivalance between military forces and terrorist groups.

That's fine, but I don't think that was what el Chi meant, and I don't like the way people (you? I don't know) pigeonhole the two sides into two neat, opposing moral in-trays.

[repiV]

Hehe, that's another debate, I'll let that rest.
The perspective you're applying here with regards to WWII isn't really relevant here. The nature of warfare 60 years ago was very different, the scale was very different - and I've got strong issues with Thatcher's war as well, but we'll say no more about that.


It's not that the nature of conventional war is hugely different, it's that we haven't fought any conventional wars since the Falklands (completely one-sided battles like Desert Storm aside). A full-scale war between two industrialised nation-states would be infinitely more destructive than anything we've seen in Iraq.
Indeed, we're not even at war with Iraq. It's a different animal entirely.
Korea, Vietnam, Falklands - all are infinitely more horrific wars than Iraq. I've never spoken to a Vietnam veteran who isn't still suffering every day from that war, often to the point that it ruins their lives.
The point is that people think there is something extra horrific about the destruction in Iraq, but that's not the case at all. A question I find interesting is, if the media had covered WW2 like they cover Iraq, would we have lost?


The world we live in now, and as you rightly point out, the way wars are dealt with in the media, means that if you're the aggressor nation, you'd better be damned sure you look before you leap, and make sure any foreseen 'accidents' are worth the risk.


The media would paint the war in a bad light no matter what the situation. It's just the way this country is these days. The concepts of "white man's shame" and "the evil West" overrides any kind of common sense.
If there was a civil war between Islamists and secularists on our own soil right now, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the BBC and Guardian would write articles about how we should try to understand the poor marginalised Muslims and how it is our fault for not making allowances for them and really we should be laying down our arms and making concessions to a "Sharia-inspired democracy". People just don't take things seriously anymore. We're too sheltered.


That's fine, but I don't think that was what el Chi meant, and I don't like the way people (you? I don't know) pigeonhole the two sides into two neat, opposing moral in-trays.

It depends on what you mean by "sides". There is the crucial difference that soldiers are people just like you and me, contracted to do a job on behalf of their country, at the whim of their politicians. Such separation between fighter and leader cannot be applied to terrorists.
There is also the point that we do actually do a lot of good things in Iraq, and our troops genuinely want to help. We are not the machine of evil empire.

[jondy]

It's not that the nature of conventional war is hugely different, it's that we haven't fought any conventional wars since the Falklands (completely one-sided battles like Desert Storm aside). A full-scale war between two industrialised nation-states would be infinitely more destructive than anything we've seen in Iraq.
Indeed, we're not even at war with Iraq. It's a different animal entirely.
Korea, Vietnam, Falklands - all are infinitely more horrific wars than Iraq. I've never spoken to a Vietnam veteran who isn't still suffering every day from that war, often to the point that it ruins their lives.
The point is that people think there is something extra horrific about the destruction in Iraq, but that's not the case at all. A question I find interesting is, if the media had covered WW2 like they cover Iraq, would we have lost?


The reason people find the Iraq conflict adhorrent is because (and I hate using this phrase, it's got horrible 'lefty' connotations, but it nevertheless applies here) 'the government lied to us about WMD'. If the Iraq war had been more justifiable - if the Iraqi state was the aggressor, for example - the media would have been a little less scathing, and the public less disgusted.

As for the question posed, I thought you'd have known better than to indulge in pointless hypotheticals :p but in all seriousness, the question isn't well thought out - there are lots of factors but I'll point out two discontinuities. Firstly, Hitler was the clear aggressor (another circumstantial piece of evidence for Godwin's law :D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)), spurning appeasement, invaded Poland yak yak blah blah. This bears no parallel to the pre-emptive doctrine applied to Iraq, a situation far less justifiable. The media -in general, there will always be sources that are consistently antiwar- only turns against conflict when its justifiability is called into account.

Secondly, war media coverage today relies on technology. Internet blogs, small, handheld cameras and cameraphones, wireless technology beaming pictures across the globe - countless examples. These were all developed as military technology, before filtering down to consumers. The upshot of this is, to achieve the level of media coverage required to disseminate a war so completely, advanced technology is needed. This level of technology is preceded by the invention of the atom bomb. World war two wouldn't have happened if, prior to 1939, the bomb had been invented. In short, it is both impossible to have a world war like world war two with today's technology, and equally impossible to achieve the level of media coverage required to disseminate a war like world war two without today's technology. Christ, that was probably unnecessarily long, but I'm sure it makes sense :p


If there was a civil war between Islamists and secularists on our own soil right now, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the BBC and Guardian would write articles about how we should try to understand the poor marginalised Muslims and how it is our fault for not making allowances for them and really we should be laying down our arms and making concessions to a "Sharia-inspired democracy". People just don't take things seriously anymore. We're too sheltered.

I've read enough of your opinion here to be reasonably sure that I won't be able to alter it, and although you might entertain thoughts of being able to alter mine, the discussion would stray too far from the topic at hand. So I'll let that rest for the time being.

It depends on what you mean by "sides". There is the crucial difference that soldiers are people just like you and me, contracted to do a job on behalf of their country, at the whim of their politicians. Such separation between fighter and leader cannot be applied to terrorists.
There is also the point that we do actually do a lot of good things in Iraq, and our troops genuinely want to help. We are not the machine of evil empire.

Armies are just tools doing jobs - no matter how honourable the intentions of individual soldiers, and there are stories of heroism and integrity that are incredible, the job remains the same. If the job of the army is to invade a country on false pretexts (and once again, I hate the connotations associated with these phrases), and by doing so inevitably rack up a high civilian death count, then the organisation wielding the tool is the one responsible, but the job the tool does is still reprehensible.

[Solaris]

You tried painting britain as some Muslim warzone, which is laughably far from the truth. I put more faith in the BBC news (or Channel 4 for that matter) regarding the state of the nation than a few dodgy google videos. Yes there are extremists out there, but given the complete lack of muslim kick back at the school assistants dismissal over the veil incident it doesn't seem we are the hotbed of racial tensions you seek to portray.Funnily enough, the google video posted was made by channel 4.

[99.vikram]

Dublin, England?

Oh, you mean like Bangalore, England? ;)
So I live in England now?....!!

EDIT: And for as long as I can remember, BBC has been less sensationalist than CNN.
The muslim community as a whole are not bent on world domination
(from my everyday experiences with them, anyway).

[Jerry_111]

atheism > all religions

[Nemesis6]

ISMs - Great in the hands of rational people, not great in the hands of irrational people.

[jondy]

Good to see we're still plumbing the depths of psuedo-profundity with such eloquence mate

[Nemesis6]

Well, something needed to be said. People who walk around and call religious people "religitards" and actually believe the world will be a better place without religion are wrong.

[CptStern]

they're wrong? how can you possibly make that statement without even acknowledging you have absolutely no way of backing up your claims?

[Mesz]

Ah, stereotypical Americans. Thinking England is just one huge place. Dublin does not belong to Britain anymore, we gave it back about 80/90 years ago!

To answer your question Cooper, yes it is like this over here in Neverland. There are nowadays two groups of muslims. All fundamentalists just some on a less violent scale than others. I do respect what this man here has said,

"These people, ladies and gentleman, have a good look at them. They actually believe if you kill women and children, you will go to heaven," said one young Muslim who waved his finger at the radicals.

"This is not ideology. It's a mental illness."

This I what I like to see, muslims fighting back against the oppression of so called, "Jihad." May i just note that Jihad is islamic for "Holy War." What muslim extremists are fighting today is not a holy war but a pointless struggle for publicity. It is very easy to spot a muslim extremist. One little mistaken racial comment which is not neccasserily offensive, and they are on the Warpath. I and many law abiding citizens of Britain are, to be frank, sick of this. We label it as "complaining for no bloody good reason!"

It is also true that our government has very diverse opinions on what is tolerated and what is not tolerated in our government.

For example (these are made up by the way but are still fairly accurate if not slightly exaggerated):

Two college students just passed their exams with flying colours. They decide to throw a party. Some old woman rings the council complaining about noise pollution and the troops are ordered in to put a stop to any fun going on in the vicinity.

A known muslim extremist has recently come into the country illegaly. He was well educated in a decent school. He learns of Benefits and decides not to get a job. Instead the government sends him ?120 a week through the mail while, in his spare time he is either ranting about the government or just sitting on his fat arse all day watching TV.

Yes I slightly exagerate them but thats what politics looks like to a British citizen who lives in a city. There was a recent case with a Mr. Abu Hamza, the madman with a hook for a hand who preached hate against the British government in the open streets while the police sat idly by watching him insult our country and everything we stand for. Recently we kicked him back into Afghanistan but he has been pleading to come back to Britain due to medical problems. I can oonly assume and pray that the hatemonger has not returned and before rotting in Afghanistan, he will realise what a good country we were to him before we kicked him out.

I hope someday the conflict between all religious groups and sub-groups will be resolved, because that in sense, is the only way we shall acheive world peace at last.

[Walter]

they're wrong? how can you possibly make that statement without even acknowledging you have absolutely no way of backing up your claims?

Again your stupid backing up...back up that it would be good then.
If all those people wouldn't believe in God that do now, they would fear of nothing else but the law. I admit that i'd be capable to kill and especially steal then.

[kirovman]

Again your stupid backing up...back up that it would be good then.


Burden of proof fallacy. You present a point, so it is your responsibility to back up what you say with evidence.


If all those people wouldn't believe in God that do now, they would fear of nothing else but the law. I admit that i'd be capable to kill and especially steal then.

You're evil then. You only follow morals because you're God fearing. If God died tomorrow, you'd be a rapist!

Plenty of people don't believe in God, but they don't steal and murder because they respect their fellow human being, and they don't require a deity/magic book to tell them what is right and wrong.
BTW argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

[Ome_Vince]

Walter, the more you speak, the worse, best to simply "read" the politics section and not make yourself a spectacle by opening your mouth :P

[CptStern]

Again your stupid backing up...back up that it would be good then.
If all those people wouldn't believe in God that do now, they would fear of nothing else but the law. I admit that i'd be capable to kill and especially steal then.

so as kirovman pointed out the only thing keeping your from eating babies is a book written by a bunch of guys who may or may not have been making it up as they went? I dont believe a word of anything in the bible ... does that mean I'm more likely to kill/rape/steal? my conscience prevents me from doing things that are wrong ...the only thing keeping you from doing anything wrong is fear ..so in that sense I'm a far better christian (love/compassion/mercy) than you are ..which is disturbing to say the least

oh and if you dont back up what you say what's the use of having any sort of conversation since I can make up shit as I go?


the world is flat

the chicken did indeed come before the egg

the sun revolves around the earth

world war 2 never happened ..in fact Hilter was a much loved opera singer famous for his stirring portrayal of Brunhilde in wagners triumphant The Valkyrie

[kirovman]

world war 2 never happened ..in fact Hilter was a much loved opera singer famous for his stirring portrayal of Brunhilde in wagners triumphant The Valkyrie

Seconded.

No evidence, it's just blindingly obvious.

[DaMaN]

the world is flat

the chicken did indeed come before the egg

the sun revolves around the earth

world war 2 never happened ..in fact Hilter was a much loved opera singer famous for his stirring portrayal of Brunhilde in wagners triumphant The Valkyrie
Seconded.

No evidence, it's just blindingly obvious.
I knew it!

[Walter]

Burden of proof fallacy. You present a point, so it is your responsibility to back up what you say with evidence.



You're evil then. You only follow morals because you're God fearing. If God died tomorrow, you'd be a rapist!

Plenty of people don't believe in God, but they don't steal and murder because they respect their fellow human being, and they don't require a deity/magic book to tell them what is right and wrong.
BTW argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

Actually, i build my life on His teachings. So if He'd not exist i'd had a completely different view of life.

[CptStern]

btw ...I was Brunhilde ..the real Brunhilde ..this is my 17th reincarnation ..last time I was a chinaman ..I'm hoping for jew next time

I met wagner (during my 14th reincarnation) ..nice guy ..had a thing for big german broads named gretchen

[DaMaN]

Actually, i build my life on His teachings. So if He'd not exist i'd had a completely different view of life.
Indeed. Had you not built your life on God's teachings, you might be able to reason using logic and facts, rather than baseless statements.

[Walter]

so as kirovman pointed out the only thing keeping your from eating babies is a book written by a bunch of guys who may or may not have been making it up as they went? I dont believe a word of anything in the bible ... does that mean I'm more likely to kill/rape/steal?


Well, that's a good question. As for myself, i'm not that much fearing of law than of God. If i'd hold a gun before you and there'd be no God, then i'd have one less thing to think about before deciding either to kill you or not.

[Walter]

Indeed. Had you not built your life on God's teachings, you might be able to reason using logic and facts, rather than baseless statements.

Where did you read that i've "BUILT" my life. And as for reason http://latter-rain.com/genko/reason.htm

[el Chi]

EDIT: Can't be bothered to get into a religious debate.

[DaMaN]

Where did you read that i've "BUILT" my life.
Possibly it was where you said:
Actually, i build my life on His teachings. So if He'd not exist i'd had a completely different view of life.

And as for reason http://latter-rain.com/genko/reason.htm
And as for reason http://www.answers.com/topic/reason
The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.

[Walter]

"I Build" has a bit different meaning than "built".

[kirovman]

Sure it does. :rolling:

[DaMaN]

"I Build" has a bit different meaning than "built".
You said that you "build your life on His teachings". I'm assuming you weren't born at the exact picosecond you wrote that, so you have some past, and therefore you "have built" your life on "His teachings". Try this if you need further help: http://a4esl.org/q/h/0101/jb-pastpres.html

Or do you live in a universe that was created yesterday?

[Walter]

No, i mean that if we see life as a road, that i'm still on the beggining of it.

[DaMaN]

No, i mean that if we see life as a road, that i'm still on the beggining of it.
That's not much of an excuse for being gramatically incorrect...

[Walter]

Well, sorry. How else can i say that then.

[Walter]

You're evil then. You only follow morals because you're God fearing. If God died tomorrow, you'd be a rapist!

The thing is God won't die tomorrow or ever, and laws can pretty much do that.
Just imagine if a country would remove the law that forbids killing or stealing. The consequences of it are unpredictable.

[CptStern]

yes because people would be killing each other willy nilly without the lord's guidance ..give me a break. Why arent atheists killing people in much higher numbers than religious people? why do you never see an abortionist bomber who's atheist? why do you never hear an atheist utter these words after the death of the enemy: "god be praised" or "god willed it"

..it's a insult to the humanity to suggest the only thing keeping us from ripping each others throats out is a fanciful book of stories written by man in an age of ignorance and superstition ..religious people are quite capable of acts of barbarity despite having two deterrents: the law and religious morality/law

[Walter]

Why arent atheists killing people in much higher numbers than religious people?

I have nothing against atheists that have any sense of mentality. The problem is that numbers of such people are decreasing, in my opinion. People simply degrade and become more law dependable than ever before.

why do you never hear an atheist utter these words after the death of the enemy: "god be praised" or "god willed it".

Wouldn't be so sure. But then again, a true believer would understand that those are blasphemous words, and basically an insult towards God.
Like Bush said that time "God told me to invade Iraq". Would God ever tell anyone to invade a country and slaugther hundred of thousands of people?

..it's a insult to the humanity to suggest the only thing keeping us from ripping each others throats out is a fanciful book of stories written by man in an age of ignorance and superstition

It's painful for me to see what is humanity capable of once you take the law away.

..religious people are quite capable of acts of barbarity despite having two deterrents: the law and religious morality/law

They are as much sinners as anyone else. But it's a lot worse for them, when they are aware of the sin they'll make, but willingly do it against God.

[Neutrino]

Whoa, I missed a religious versus secular moralality debate? I will be back...

[Solaris]

I have nothing against atheists that have any sense of mentality. The problem is that numbers of such people are decreasing, in my opinion. People simply degrade and become more law dependable than ever before.

Evidence?

Wouldn't be so sure. But then again, a true believer would understand that those are blasphemous words, and basically an insult towards God.
Like Bush said that time "God told me to invade Iraq". Would God ever tell anyone to invade a country and slaugther hundred of thousands of people?
This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.' (1 Samuel 15:2-3 NAB)

[Walter]

Evidence?

Hmm...let me think....maybe the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, to start with. Looters, Cops seen discriminating afro-americans while noone was around (caught on video by luck). Have no time at the moment to look for that one, perhaps you should see if it is in youtube or google video, i've only seen it once on the news back then.
People seem to be waiting for such moments when the law cannot reach them.

This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.' (1 Samuel 15:2-3 NAB)

Yeah, this is when the law "eye for an eye" was applied. But then, it's the old testament you've quoted.

P.S I'll create a Christianity topic later if you've got more questions and are interested to find the answers. Though it won't be in the Politics forum.

[Neutrino]

Hmm...let me think....maybe the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, to start with. Looters, Cops seen discriminating afro-americans while noone was around (caught on video by luck). Have no time at the moment to look for that one, perhaps you should see if it is in youtube or google video, i've only seen it once on the news back then.
People seem to be waiting for such moments when the law cannot reach them.

Have you ever read any history? At all? Honest question.

[Walter]

Why do you ask that? I know it's not the first time, but it's just an example to what our society is capable of while noone is there to bring them to justice.

Oh, here's one about looting there:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7554865090799900529&q=katrina+new+orleans+cop

[brink's]

Because everything you say is based entirely on your opinion rather then facts.

[Walter]

I have nothing against atheists that have any sense of mentality. The problem is that numbers of such people are decreasing, in my opinion. People simply degrade and become more law dependable than ever before.

THIS must be my bad english again?!

[brink's]

.....is that everything you've said? I could swear you have at least 250 more posts.

[Sulkdodds]

Would God ever tell anyone to invade a country and slaugther hundred of thousands of people?Yes. Quite apart from the other quote posted, I believe Deuteronomy commands you to put all male prisoners of war to death when you invade places. And to burn any towns where people worship false prophets. That kind of thing.

Deuteronomy 2 (12-15): "Now if the city will not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. And when the Lord your God delivers it into your hands, you shall strike every male in it with the edge of the sword."

Deuteronomy 3 (16-18): "But of the cities of these peoples which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, but you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the Lord your God has commanded you, lest they teach you to do according to all their abominations which they have done for their gods, and you sin against the Lord your God."

Oh dear!

Of course, that's the old testament - which was never the word of God, right?

I can only assume that when Jesus came along he revealed the previous Christians to be a load of mad and blaspheming zealots - I mean, I can't imagine that God would change his mind.

PresumpIf we presume to believe in the Biblical God, then he has either very clearly endorsed (at some point or another) mass slaughter in warfare, or the Old Testament is blasphemous bullshit and large swathes of it 'don't count'.

[Walter]

It's quite predictable that you've asked of that, but like i said I'll create a christian debate topic sometime later.

[CptStern]

lol talk about walking into a minefield ..you'll be cut to ribbons. I'll pray for your soul walter

[Sulkdodds]

It's quite predictable that you've asked of that, but like i said I'll create a christian debate topic sometime later.Naturally it's predictable. It's the sensible response.

I'd rather you want into it right here instead of having us wait around for a promised thread that may or may not appear, if it's all the same to you.

In either case, good luck convincing Mecha that what's in the old testament doesn't count.

[kirovman]

The old testiclemint.

[Walter]

Naturally it's predictable. It's the sensible response.

I'd rather you want into it right here instead of having us wait around for a promised thread that may or may not appear, if it's all the same to you.

In either case, good luck convincing Mecha that what's in the old testament doesn't count.

Sure i'll post it, i have no reason to be silent.
As for Old testament, it's not as it doesn't count in total, just some laws filled their purpose. I'll talk later about it.

[Walter]

Yes. Quite apart from the other quote posted, I believe Deuteronomy commands you to put all male prisoners of war to death when you invade places. And to burn any towns where people worship false prophets. That kind of thing.

Deuteronomy 2 (12-15): "Now if the city will not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. And when the Lord your God delivers it into your hands, you shall strike every male in it with the edge of the sword."

Deuteronomy 3 (16-18): "But of the cities of these peoples which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, but you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the Lord your God has commanded you, lest they teach you to do according to all their abominations which they have done for their gods, and you sin against the Lord your God."

Oh dear!

Of course, that's the old testament - which was never the word of God, right?

I can only assume that when Jesus came along he revealed the previous Christians to be a load of mad and blaspheming zealots - I mean, I can't imagine that God would change his mind.

PresumpIf we presume to believe in the Biblical God, then he has either very clearly endorsed (at some point or another) mass slaughter in warfare, or the Old Testament is blasphemous bullshit and large swathes of it 'don't count'.

You remind me of a student that opens a book, sees something hard for him to understand but doesn't want to seek an answer. Instead, he wants everyone to run around and do it for him.
And i don't need explained that it's a naturally predictable question, Sulkdodds, thanks. If i said it's predictable, it might be because i've asked that once myself.

[Solaris]

You remind me of a student that opens a book, sees something hard for him to understand but doesn't want to seek an answer. Instead, he wants everyone to run around and do it for him.
And i don't need explained that it's a naturally predictable question, Sulkdodds, thanks. If i said it's predictable, it might be because i've asked that once myself.
Fail, try again.

Really, that doesn't address anything and it won't wash here.

[CptStern]

You remind me of a student that opens a book, sees something hard for him to understand but doesn't want to seek an answer. Instead, he wants everyone to run around and do it for him.
And i don't need explained that it's a naturally predictable question, Sulkdodds, thanks. If i said it's predictable, it might be because i've asked that once myself.

I had to look 3 times to make sure you werent quoting yourself, because I'm absolutely positive you meant to quote Walter



are you sure you're not talking about yourself





you meant you right?

[Walter]

Fail, try again.

Really, that doesn't address anything and it won't wash here.

They say a diplomat is someone who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that you'll look forward to the trip. Man, i'd sure want to be a diplomat sometimes...

[DaMaN]

You remind me of a student that opens a book, sees something hard for him to understand but doesn't want to seek an answer. Instead, he wants everyone to run around and do it for him.
And i don't need explained that it's a naturally predictable question, Sulkdodds, thanks. If i said it's predictable, it might be because i've asked that once myself.
You remind me of a religious nut that opens a book, takes what it says at face value, and doesn't try to reason any of it out.

[Sulkdodds]

You remind me of a student that opens a book, sees something hard for him to understand but doesn't want to seek an answer. Instead, he wants everyone to run around and do it for him.You say that, but actually I am seeking an answer. I am seeking an answer from you, Walter. I am putting forward an argument based on the knowledge available to me. And I would be very much obliged if you would actually engage me in debate instead of just sitting back and telling me I'm lazy.

I've made my view known - are you going to take the effort to respond? If you've already considered this, and if you have the answer, are you going to enlighten me?

[kirovman]

Man, i'd sure want to be a diplomat sometimes...

You'll have to learn some diplomacy first.

[PvtRyan]

Sure i'll post it, i have no reason to be silent.
As for Old testament, it's not as it doesn't count in total, just some laws filled their purpose. I'll talk later about it.

And who chooses what doesn't count and what does? Where does it say *some* laws expired? God didn't say anything about that, could you have perhaps... made it all up?

And by what criteria do you decide what still counts and what doesn't? Burning the town of unbelievers is probably something you don't agree with, but how have you decided you can ignore that but at the same time (most likely) follow the ten commandments?

And if we have independant criteria to decide on what's morally right and wrong in the Bible to do in a modern society, wouldn't you say that man is capable of being moral by themselves and (believe in) God doesn't have anything to do with it?

Or in short Walter, answer this question: how do you decide what's right and what's wrong to do?

[Walter]

The more the interesting questions the more eager i'm to answer them. Really apologize, but i doubt i'll be able to start that debate in at least a week or so. I'll try next weekend, though I can't promise anything.

[Walter]

You'll have to learn some diplomacy first.

:dozey: you don't say...

[kirovman]

I just meant that you seem severely depleted in that particular area.

[Walter]

Compared to some monkeys here that i try to ignore i think i'm quite diplomatic with my manners. Sure, not always...but not every post too.

[kirovman]

Hmm, well I admit you don't lose your rag too often, but you still have a lot to be desired.

Part of being diplomatic is telling people what they want to hear, whilst retaining your original view in that statement.

They call it public relations, or 'spin'.

[Beerdude26]

The more the interesting questions the more eager i'm to answer them. Really apologize, but i doubt i'll be able to start that debate in at least a week or so. I'll try next weekend, though I can't promise anything.Tbh, that is very diplomatic. You even postponed the time schedule because you didn't have the answer immediately! :laugh:

[Walter]

Actually, that's because i've got other things to do than to spend time with a debate right now. :)

[Sulkdodds]

A true master of spin.