the number one thing it highlights nut, is the necessity of separating religion from the secular or state

unfortunately islam has a habit of overreaching into areas beyond religion (imo)

i think this tendency more than anything is what leads to a lot of problems

tell that to those who were buggered by protected species, under the cloke of some of the law within our own country

It has to stop. religions have to be made accountable for the grievous harm they sometimes inflict. Jail is the antidote for those clergy who prey on the vulnerable in our community.

'je suis, CHARLiE'

well these radical idiots are at it again... far from being meek & mild ; religious &/or political zealots are closer to the opposite pole from 'love'; 'fear',,, 'creativity', 'controlling & forceful'...

love for the french peoples

.... viva la france`....

The large majority of Muslims are peace loving. But it is increasingly obvious a small percentage are not.

Anyone with the slightest ability in statistics or maths will tell you that the more Muslims you have in your society the greater chance of a terrorist attack.

And before I get lampooned for this. Je suis Charlie.

The large majority of Muslims are peace loving. But it is increasingly obvious a small percentage are not.

Anyone with the slightest ability in statistics or maths will tell you that the more Muslims you have in your society the greater chance of a terrorist attack.

And before I get lampooned for this. Je suis Charlie.

Anyone with the slightest ability in statistics or maths will tell you that the more Catholic priests you have in your society the greater chance of sexual abuse.

Anyone with the slightest ability in statistics or maths will tell you that the more Catholic priests you have in your society the greater chance of sexual abuse.

I completely agree. A lifestyle of celibacy often leads to unnatural behavior. And on the whole statistics thing someone prone to unnatural behavior is probably more likely to choose an unorthodox lifestyle.

We need to start identifying groups more likely to be problematic based on statistics and less worried about offending people.

A sadly lost age old adage in modern society is "sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me"

(Edit was to fix spelling)

Edited November 16, 20159 yr by Wrecker45

Removed my post. I don't want to get into another argument with you wrecker. I don't have the energy.

Removed my post. I don't want to get into another argument with you wrecker. I don't have the energy.

Choke - I agreed with you and I think that is what you are upset by.

Choke - I agreed with you and I think that is what you are upset by.

Actually it was your last line that I took real issue with.

Language is extremely powerful and can be used as a weapon. It bothers me greatly when people who are offended by things are labelled as 'weak' etc. I think the PC brigade has actually added much more value to society than any trade-off we've had to make by 'walking on eggshells' linguistically speaking. I take issue with people who feign outrage and hide behind PC labels, claiming offence when there is none, but that doesn't change my belief that on the whole we are better with it than without.

Anyway it doesn't matter, I don't want to argue the point. I'm never going to change your mind and I don't think either of us will learn much from the experience.

Edit: I'm also pretty down due to the Paris news. Both in the event and various reactions to it. Not a great mindspace for intellectual debate sorry.

Edited November 16, 20159 yr by Choke

Actually it was your last line that I took real issue with.

Language is extremely powerful and can be used as a weapon. It bothers me greatly when people who are offended by things are labelled as 'weak' etc. I think the PC brigade has actually added much more value to society than any trade-off we've had to make by 'walking on eggshells' linguistically speaking. I take issue with people who feign outrage and hide behind PC labels, claiming offence when there is none, but that doesn't change my belief that on the whole we are better with it than without.

Anyway it doesn't matter, I don't want to argue the point. I'm never going to change your mind and I don't think either of us will learn much from the experience.

Edit: I'm also pretty down due to the Paris news. Both in the event and various reactions to it. Not a great mindspace for intellectual debate sorry.

Whilst we probably differ on the amount the PC brigade has over stepped the mark I agree for the most part again

Cloudflare accused of aiding and abetting IS terrorism sites http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/hacking/a-silicon-valley-startup-has-come-under-attack-for-helping-protect-islamic-state-propaganda-websites/news-story/cc3b7d083bf8ef2f956da42837e1710d?sv=dcf94dd60cedf34c0843d43ce1df67a6

Extremist Buddhism in Myanmar.

Extremist Hindu groups operating in India.

ISIL and others.

I just finished a scary book that talked about American Christian Fundamentalists financing Jewish extremists in Israel to blow up Al Aqsa and Dome of the Rock so the the third temple can be built on temple mount - bringing on the rapture.

Whilst the simple answer is that the extremist/fundamentalists represent a minute percentage of their religions I cannot help but feel the world would be a much better place if there was no religions at all.

Extremist Buddhism in Myanmar.

Extremist Hindu groups operating in India.

ISIL and others.

I just finished a scary book that talked about American Christian Fundamentalists financing Jewish extremists in Israel to blow up Al Aqsa and Dome of the Rock so the the third temple can be built on temple mount - bringing on the rapture.

Whilst the simple answer is that the extremist/fundamentalists represent a minute percentage of their religions I cannot help but feel the world would be a much better place if there was no religions at all.

Yeah but then you'll just have extremist atheists, who'll try to apply Darwinism to society where it doesn't belong. Eugenics and stuff.

Although religion is a huge part of the problem, IMHO the bigger problem is that people suck. We have a tendency to see the whole world in "in" and "out" groups. The more homogenised we get, the sillier the distinction between those groups becomes. It won't stop up drawing up lines to divide people though.

Once we all think of ourself as "one people", corny as it sounds, it'll make all the difference. If we think of everyone in our "in" group, everything changes. I'm just not sure the human brain can see the world that way. And if it could, you'd need EVERY human brain to do it, and a lot of us don't even want to include other societies as part of a larger whole.

Full disclosure - I am an atheist and do think the world would be better served without the often destructive influence (physical and in discourse) of organised religion. At the very least, religions should be taxed. Probably solve the budget black hole right there. Lol, imagine how much money Italy would make if the Catholic Church paid land tax.

Turkey's drug haul to hit Syrian fighters

Actually it was your last line that I took real issue with.

Language is extremely powerful and can be used as a weapon. It bothers me greatly when people who are offended by things are labelled as 'weak' etc. I think the PC brigade has actually added much more value to society than any trade-off we've had to make by 'walking on eggshells' linguistically speaking. I take issue with people who feign outrage and hide behind PC labels, claiming offence when there is none, but that doesn't change my belief that on the whole we are better with it than without.

Anyway it doesn't matter, I don't want to argue the point. I'm never going to change your mind and I don't think either of us will learn much from the experience.

Edit: I'm also pretty down due to the Paris news. Both in the event and various reactions to it. Not a great mindspace for intellectual debate sorry.

opposite poles of the same problem

the PC brigade allow kids be buggered, by those they should be trusting, but obviously cannot.

churches thrive in the words unsaid, & 'skeletons in closets' is born. fear of others finding the skeletons, is then a result of this type of PC.

No, outspokenness is best, & if someone is hurt by the words, then they should have the courage to speak up & say so; then a respectful dialogue can potentially happen, with hopefully understanding & a mutual respect, a possibility.

IMO political correctness is the domain of those who are fearful & feel unable to hold a personal discussion with an adversary, without losing control, or being too bashful or too embarrassed to be assertive.

.... no, leaving things unsaid, is possibly more damaging than being verbally aggressive... except the damage is mostly unseen, & unheard.

.

Although religion is a huge part of the problem, IMHO the bigger problem is that people suck.

This is pretty much it....

How to upset the irrational 101:

A small percentage of catholic priests are pedophiles and a minute percentage of pedophiles are catholic priests

A small percentage of Muslims are terrorists but a large percentage of terrorists are Muslim.

How to upset the irrational 101:

How... by providing an equally irrational argument?

How to upset the irrational 101:

A small percentage of catholic priests are pedophiles and a minute percentage of pedophiles are catholic priests

A small percentage of Muslims are terrorists but a large percentage of terrorists are Muslim.

who told you a small percentage of catholic priests are pedophiles ??? how do you know the percentage of catholic pedophile priests ? and how do you know its small?

On 12/1/2015 at 10:49 PM, hardtack said:

How... by providing an equally irrational argument?

If i were irrational you would be able to argue against what I have written. The fact is you can't. 

2 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

If i were irrational you would be able to argue against what I have written. The fact is you can't. 

The fact is I couldn't be bothered... besides, you should know that there is no way to argue against the irrational.

On 12/14/2015 at 3:06 PM, hardtack said:

The fact is I couldn't be bothered... besides, you should know that there is no way to argue against the irrational.

Of course you can argue against the irrational. The greater argument will always win. Put it out there and let the people decide for themselves. The problem is you don't want a rational argument because the satellite data conclusively proves there has been no warming for 18 years, despite a massive spike in CO2.

But of course you can't be bothered...

 

1 hour ago, Wrecker45 said:

Of course you can argue against the irrational. The greater argument will always win. Put it out there and let the people decide for themselves. The problem is you don't want a rational argument because the satellite data conclusively proves there has been no warming for 18 years, despite a massive spike in CO2.

But of course you can't be bothered...

 

Correct... my obsession doesn't run that deep.

On 15/12/2015 at 3:15 PM, Wrecker45 said:

Of course you can argue against the irrational. The greater argument will always win. Put it out there and let the people decide for themselves. The problem is you don't want a rational argument because the satellite data conclusively proves there has been no warming for 18 years, despite a massive spike in CO2.

But of course you can't be bothered...

 

here is an image of your non climate change wrecka, is it warmer or cooler?   now study this over xmas holidays,  & report back when you see what it is?

A year since Charlie and some fool has attempted an attack on a Paris police station, apparently to coincide with the anniversary. This one looks, though, more in line with Marx's dictum that history occurs twice, the first time as tragedy, the second as farce.

As Charlie said late last year, in true Situationist style: 'They have weapons. F--- them. We have champagne!'

 

3 hours ago, Dr John Dee said:

A year since Charlie and some fool has attempted an attack on a Paris police station, apparently to coincide with the anniversary. This one looks, though, more in line with Marx's dictum that history occurs twice, the first time as tragedy, the second as farce.

As Charlie said late last year, in true Situationist style: 'They have weapons. F--- them. We have champagne!'

 

dr JD... I just wonder if this guy wanted to be martyrized without killing anyone else...  if so,  then his will to not maim/kill others,  if he was under pressure from others to act ?