EPTUK Politics Mega-thread - Page 81
| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
KwarK
United States43538 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9768 Posts
Also the variety of hats on show in every day life around the UK would dramatically decrease. I wonder why God made us with hair and then told us to cover the stuff up. Weird. | ||
|
Maverick_2009
Somewhere2002 Posts
On May 13 2016 06:37 Shield wrote: Exactly, and that's why I don't and can't tolerate people who force their women to wear burqa. Surely you know what the purpose of burqa is. If not, google should be enough. If such people can't treat their women right, why should I tolerate them as well? You kind of contradict yourself. You say burqas are fine, but multiple mosques in a tight area aren't fine. Well, guess what. There are more women with burqa within an area than mosques. Just go out and see for yourself. Then, you talk how you don't want to get rid of British identity. I don't understand how all of this fits together. If anything, you should be doing the opposite, that is, to teach those people to act like British (or European). I don't think you quite get what I mean by burqas being fine, or, for want of a better phrase, you've misinterpreted my message. Again, yes, it's becoming repetitive, but I will stress this so long as we're discussing how Muslim women might dress, I come from a predominantly Muslim country and I have spent my entire life except for the past year where I've lived in the UK around Muslims and many other ethnic and religious groups. It may be different from how it is for British Muslims but it is sufficiently similar for me to make relatively informed judgments. Yes, there are those who are forced to wear burqas, but there are also many more that do it out of personal choice. I personally think that the way to understand this is to understand some of Islam's teachings first and frankly, I would say that in Islamic teaching, it rewards more than it punishes. You are rewarded for covering up your hair, face, etc if you're a woman, you aren't exactly punished for not wearing one, depending on how your husband interprets the teaching and how seriously they take it. Depending on what you define as burqa, there is also hijab and niqab which are very different from burqa and they serve the same purpose. The fundamental point that I'm trying to make here is that Britain, at this point, inevitably, is a multicultural country with various denominations and how one of those denominations (i.e. Muslims) dress should not be an issue whatsoever. In the same way that you seem to object to the idea of burqas etc, they could just as well go down to the beach in Newport and object to the idea of women wearing bikinis or men dressed in nothing but swimming trunks or boxers, it's a pretty redundant thing to fuss about. I'm sure if you google about whether burqas are forced wear, you will find that for some, they are, but for just as many if not more, they are out of personal choice. You're carrying a preemptive view here that if a woman is wearing a burqa, they were forced to be their husband, or at least that is what I have interpreted from what you have said. As for the issue on mosques and British identity, my point is that Britain is essentially a country with a very rich history and imo, putting several mosques in a tight area doesn't make it feel like you're in Britain but rather it makes you feel like you're in an Islamic country. Depending on the size of the mosques, 14 mosques within a 49 square mile radius (the example I used earlier) is not a small amount and diminishes the identity of being in Britain. Regarding the teaching of those people to act like British, this is where my point that the whole thing about human rights is a contradiction. While we can take measures to teach them British values etc, they have a right to not accept those because we would otherwise be forcing it on them and insulting their right to, from their perspective, freely practise their religion. I'm sure you know that Islam severely punishes apostasy and rarely does a converted Muslim get off the hook scot free, so they live with fear and, for those unlike Sadiq Khan (a British-born Muslim) aka migrants, of which there are plenty, they grow up being taught that apostasy is one of the worst crimes possible and it is banned in all Muslim countries. It is indeed important to integrate but thanks to contradictions, it is frankly impossible without the consent of the people who need to integrate. Iirc, David Cameron did mention something about deporting those who failed to integrate and he got backlash for it as an infringement of human rights. There are frankly no practical ways to accommodate all these views and rights in modern society because modern society has become too rigid in its "flexibility", basically making people unable to make a decision without receiving backlash or come to a unanimous decision. | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
On May 13 2016 08:27 2009 wrote: I'm sure you know that Islam severely punishes apostasy and rarely does a converted Muslim get off the hook scot free, so they live with fear This is why I say islam is incompatible with European values and democracy. This is also why I don't tolerate islam. It forces people to do something, especially because of fear. Be it burqa, be it converting to christianity, etc. By tolerating such behaviour blindly, Europe is losing its identity. Worse, it loses its democracy. Nobody can say shit because they're labelled racist, bigot, etc. It's all possible thanks to "political correctness". Basically, you cannot speak your mind anymore because someone will be upset. Unfortunately, some people got tired of this and that's why you have Donald Trump. I'm not supportive of or against him, but you have to ask why his agenda makes him the most successful republican candidate right now. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43538 Posts
On May 13 2016 08:52 Shield wrote: This is why I say islam is incompatible with European values and democracy. This is also why I don't tolerate islam. It forces people to do something, especially because of fear. Be it burqa, be it converting to christianity, etc. By tolerating such behaviour blindly, Europe is losing its identity. Worse, it loses its democracy. Nobody can say shit because they're labelled racist, bigot, etc. It's all possible thanks to "political correctness". Basically, you cannot speak your mind anymore because someone will be upset. Unfortunately, some people got tired of this and that's why you have Donald Trump. I'm not supportive of or against him, but you have to ask why his agenda makes him the most successful republican candidate right now. Fundamentalist Islam is incompatible with European values. However fundamentalist Islam is a minority viewpoint within British Islam and I have every confidence that it'll be eroded by time and progress. Secular liberalism is frankly better and while a few jaded misfits might grow up in Britain feeling disillusioned and disenfranchised and seek out radical Islam, for every one of them a hundred more make friends with homosexuals, apostates, women etc. I have absolute faith that we will win this culture war, especially given the majority of British Muslims are on the same side as the rest of us. We don't need to protect our liberal democracy from the demon of Muslims. Our society is far stronger. I suspect the result will end up something like American pro-lifers. There is a significant population in America who believe that abortion is literally murder and therefore that Planned Parenthood is literally worse than Auschwitz. No hyperbole, if you genuinely believe that a fetus is an innocent baby then Planned Parenthood is industrial scale slaughter targeting only the most vulnerable infants. So the question has to be, where is the violent outrage? You wouldn't picket Auschwitz, you'd bomb the place. You wouldn't shout mean things at Himmler, you'd murder him. Instead those people have created a doublethink where they can believe that they are morally compelled by their faith to act and then not act because they understand that they live in a secular society and that their actions would infringe upon the rights of others. This idea that a religious belief must end in violence is absurd. People believe all sorts of contrary and ridiculous things and then act completely differently. You might as well argue that Christianity must necessarily result in Marxism. Ultimately people will do whatever they want to do, regardless of what they believe. | ||
|
lord_nibbler
Germany591 Posts
On May 15 2016 09:39 KwarK wrote: You have got to be kidding me!There is a significant population in America who believe that abortion is literally murder and therefore that Planned Parenthood is literally worse than Auschwitz. No hyperbole [..] Instead those people have created a doublethink where they can believe that they are morally compelled by their faith to act and then not act because they understand that they live in a secular society and that their actions would infringe upon the rights of others. This idea that a religious belief must end in violence is absurd. How can someone be able to write a whole paragraph on something and not have a clue about the most basic facts on that topic? Are you plain ignorant to reality or are you the prime example of the 'doublethink' you accuse others of? en.wikipedia.org - Anti-abortion Violence "Anti-abortion extremists are considered a current domestic terrorist threat by the US Department of Justice. Most documented incidents have occurred in the United States..." | ||
|
KwarK
United States43538 Posts
On May 15 2016 10:11 lord_nibbler wrote: You have got to be kidding me! How can someone be able to write a whole paragraph on something and not have a clue about the most basic facts on that topic? Are you plain ignorant to reality or are you the prime example of the 'doublethink' you accuse others of? en.wikipedia.org - Anti-abortion Violence "Anti-abortion extremists are considered a current domestic terrorist threat by the US Department of Justice. Most documented incidents have occurred in the United States..." No shit, it happens. You genuinely believed that I thought it had never actually happened? Jesus. And you thought I was ignorant. Like one in every 10 million pro-life Christian Americans is born defective and goes and shoots up a Planned Parenthood. The rate is amazingly low. Like way lower than workplace violence etc. So low that you absolutely cannot draw any conclusions about pro-life Christians from it. If there was an issue with your average pro-life Christian American we would know about it. There is like 100 million of them. As a group they're pretty benign. So yes, if you take 10 million Muslims in the UK in 50 years time, all of whom believe apostates must be killed, maybe one of them will be defective and maybe that one will kill an apostate. But to draw conclusions about Islam from that would be absurd, just as it would be to claim that literally believing abortion is murder will inevitably lead you to shoot up a Planned Parenthood. Hell, your fucking wikipedia article says 11 murders in the last 26 years. For 100 million pro-life Americans they're not trying very hard, are they? Your evidence supports my conclusion, not yours. You quoted my conclusion "This idea that a religious belief must end in violence is absurd", gave evidence that pro-life violence is unbelievably rare and then fell off a cliff of full retard. | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
I think that you could argue both ways; the percentages are worryingly high, and people may rightly be concerned at how long it might take for Muslims to fully respect human rights in the way most Western countries do. But its probably also fair to say that over time these percentages will decrease. If you look back at polls taken in 2006 (Telegraph), 40% of British Muslims wanted Sharia law at the time. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43538 Posts
| ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
For now I think its safer to be conservative and take what people are saying at face value. And I'm assuming your point about Christians dying rich is a reference to Jesus giving away his goods to the poor, and how Christians should emulate him. That kind of assumes that people believe that part of the bible as being a direct guide that everyone must follow, rather than as some kind of 'suggestion' or other such wordplay. We all know religious people will freely pick and choose what they believe from their holy books, and radically interpret things in different ways (in particular, in ways that don't lead them to living lives of squalor). I'm sure there is some other part of the bible that contradicts that story too, so they can choose to believe that part instead. But once they settle on some watered-down belief and state it openly, I think that's something different. Its entirely possible, if not probable, that those rich Christians have adopted those types of beliefs. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43538 Posts
On May 15 2016 10:43 radscorpion9 wrote: Well maybe you're right, I'm not sure how obvious that is or what you're basing that on. I feel like one would need to be a sociologist or maybe a psychologist to understand how well stated beliefs actually reflect the way people live their lives. For now I think its safer to be conservative and take what people are saying at face value. And I'm assuming your point about Christians dying rich is a reference to Jesus giving away his goods to the poor, and how Christians should emulate him. That kind of assumes that people believe that part of the bible as being a direct guide that everyone must follow, rather than as some kind of 'suggestion' or other such wordplay. We all know religious people will freely pick and choose what they believe from their holy books, and radically interpret things in different ways (in particular, in ways that don't lead them to living lives of squalor). I'm sure there is some other part of the bible that contradicts that story too, so they can choose to believe that part instead. But once they settle on some watered-down belief and state it openly, I think that's something different. Its entirely possible if not probable that those rich Christians have adopted those watered-down beliefs. I'm not looking to get into a religion argument but my reading of the Bible includes Jesus saying, and I'm paraphrasing here, "no rich people in heaven, like at all, ever, if you die rich you should have been more charitable". However people like Christianity but they fucking love money so they can believe in the word of Jesus while doing something else entirely because that's what suits them. Same reason the pro-lifers don't go on a rampage. They've got shit to do and places to be and stuff going on that doesn't involve their beliefs so they set them to one side. Muhammad can write whatever he likes in the Koran but if it's not pretty much what the believer wanted to be doing anyway then your average believer isn't going to be doing it. You'll get some defectives who weed themselves out of the gene pool but as a rule most people just do whatever they feel like doing. Any other argument and you end up absolving ISIS or Saudi Arabia of guilt for their fucked up shit. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
There is a “severe” threat of terrorist attacks on police in Northern Ireland by dissident republican groups, a higher level than MI5’s warning last week of a “substantial” risk of a New IRA bomb in Britain, the Observer has learned. One of those groups has acquired a stock of the deadly explosive semtex, security sources say. Rank-and-file police officers in the region are on a high state of alert as the three main hardline republican paramilitary groups target them for assassination. With the security forces dealing with a 40% increase in bomb alerts in the province, the Police Federation for Northern Ireland says the terrorist threat is now severe – the highest threat rate. According to the latest statistics from the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), over the past 12 months there have been 52 bomb attacks across Northern Ireland compared with 36 the previous year. One prison officer, Adrian Ismay, died from injuries after a bomb exploded underneath his van in March. On Thursday, Theresa May, the home secretary, confirmed in the House of Commons that the dissident republican terror threat was “substantial”, which means a bombing in England is a strong possibility. Dissident republican and Irish security sources have separately confirmed that the New IRA – the largest of the anti-peace-process republican armed groups – has obtained semtex. Up to a quarter of a tonne of the Czech-made, Libyan-supplied explosive was taken from a secret arms dump in County Cavan in the Irish Republic that was unknown to the Provisional IRA. A future leading republican dissident had kept the hiding place secret because of a pending split in the organisation. Source | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6639 Posts
On May 16 2016 05:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So could the "New IRA" be responsible for the Old Trafford package today? Hoax or not. Source It turned out to be a training device left by a security company, pretty stupid really. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14101 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9768 Posts
“Many of the good things that government did I supported, obviously. But I was not convinced of some of its actions or inactions that in effect reinforced much of the Thatcher agenda and inheritance. “In the period New Labour undermined trust too. New Labour was often actually very unfairly tarnished with the label of spin. It actually spun no more than its predecessors or indeed its successors. “But we did go to war. The Chilcot report will come out in a few weeks’ time and tell us what we need to know, what I think we already know: There were no weapons of mass destruction, there was no ability to attack within 45 minutes and a deal had been done with Bush in advance.” www.telegraph.co.uk For those who might say "well what's new?" I answer: If the inquiry has turned up evidence that proves Corbyn's claim it is a stark and brutal indictment of Tony Blair and the war in Iraq. In chronological order Tony Blair: 1: Made a deal with Bush to go to war in Iraq. 2: Systematically and deliberately misled the public into believing outrageous claims regarding Iraq's war capabilities to justify going to war. 3: Completely ignored his own MPs, the public and international law. 4: Screwed up the war, basically lost it completely, failed to complete any of the aims except removal of Hussain. 5: Continued to lie about his reasons until the present day 6: Exploited the situation financially for the rest of his career. Honestly that doesn't read well. I'm looking forward to seeing what evidence is actually produced by this investigation. | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7960 Posts
On May 21 2016 03:34 Shield wrote: Almost a month until the referendum. Then, Farage and Boris Johnson may finally shut up. Well, I'm not that sure. Amazing display of cynicism by Cameron for setting up this shit in the first place, knowing himself very well that a Brexit would be an utter disaster for everyone. | ||
| ||
