Youtube comments of (@titteryenot4524).
-
4500
-
3500
-
1800
-
1700
-
1600
-
1500
-
1400
-
1300
-
1300
-
1100
-
1100
-
1000
-
1000
-
955
-
887
-
868
-
841
-
823
-
781
-
750
-
743
-
736
-
731
-
722
-
684
-
675
-
628
-
626
-
626
-
622
-
619
-
607
-
569
-
559
-
559
-
543
-
540
-
534
-
514
-
512
-
511
-
489
-
473
-
Frankly, Israel should be surprised by none of this. I don’t particularly support any side here, but what can be observed is a 75-year-long ongoing fight whereby one side has been throwing its weight around considerably more than the other side (if the year on year casualty figures are anything to go by), yet when the other side finds the capability to strike back, the opponent is somehow surprised, as if that were just not cricket, old boy! Last time I checked, in a boxing match both sides were allowed to throw punches. In these kinds of seemingly intractable situations, I always flip it: how would the Israelis feel if the boot were on the other foot and it was they who were living in the conditions the average Palestinian is (and has been for decades) living in? They’d be fighting back. Fighting for dignity and freedom. A 2-state solution is the only way here. Of course, with this, the nitty-gritty will be who gets custody of the car and who gets custody of the cat.
467
-
455
-
448
-
445
-
440
-
427
-
412
-
410
-
401
-
398
-
393
-
392
-
391
-
387
-
384
-
384
-
383
-
370
-
367
-
366
-
364
-
363
-
360
-
358
-
354
-
351
-
351
-
351
-
350
-
338
-
328
-
327
-
326
-
318
-
316
-
314
-
314
-
307
-
300
-
300
-
299
-
298
-
295
-
If my next-door neighbour repressed and oppressed me for 75 years (after evicting me from my home), just because they could (ie. massive military support from elsewhere), then did you honestly think that at some point I wouldn’t punch back? Last time I checked, in a fist-fight, both fighters are allowed to throw punches. That doesn’t mean that what Hamas did on October 7th was justified, but it was hardly unpredictable. As Isaac Asimov said: I remember how it was in 1948 when Israel was being established and all my Jewish friends were ecstatic. I was not. I said: what are we doing? We are establishing ourselves in a ghetto, in a small corner of a vast Muslim sea. The Muslims will never forget nor forgive, and Israel, as long as it exists, will be embattled. Until a 2-state solution that is just for both parties is implemented, this nightmare will never end.
294
-
292
-
289
-
288
-
286
-
286
-
282
-
282
-
281
-
280
-
276
-
275
-
271
-
268
-
263
-
260
-
258
-
256
-
253
-
251
-
251
-
251
-
249
-
240
-
240
-
239
-
238
-
236
-
236
-
234
-
232
-
232
-
231
-
230
-
222
-
222
-
220
-
220
-
219
-
218
-
218
-
218
-
216
-
215
-
214
-
213
-
212
-
211
-
209
-
208
-
207
-
206
-
Never got the ‘hate what another human does when it comes to their sexual orientation’ memo. Makes utterly no sense. I tend to dislike people for their ideas, their beliefs, their opinions, their dress-sense, and not something over which they have utterly no say or control. It’s like dissing people with a different skin colour. Pointless. Not only pointless, but totally stupid and moronic, as no one chooses their skin colour, just as no one chooses their sexuality. But here’s the clincher for me: even if we did choose our skin colour and sexuality, it still wouldn’t bother me one iota that some random has a different skin colour or sexuality. The sooner we can move beyond this primitive nonsense as a species, the better. If it’s consenting adults, it’s quite simply no one else’s business what they get up to. To me, being homophobic is a bit like feeling resentful of someone digging Uranus because you’re not an astronomer! 🔭
203
-
202
-
202
-
201
-
201
-
200
-
199
-
196
-
195
-
193
-
192
-
192
-
187
-
179
-
179
-
178
-
178
-
177
-
174
-
174
-
174
-
174
-
173
-
Frankly, Israel should be surprised by none of this. I don’t particularly support any side here, but what can be observed is a 75-year-long ongoing fight whereby one side has been throwing its weight around considerably more than the other side (if the year on year casualty figures are anything to go by), yet when the other side finds the capability to strike back, the opponent is somehow surprised, as if that were just not cricket, old boy! Last time I checked, in a boxing match both sides were allowed to throw punches. In these kinds of seemingly intractable situations, I always flip it: how would the Israelis feel if the boot were on the other foot and it was they who were living in the conditions the average Palestinian is (and has been for decades) living in? They’d be fighting back. Fighting for dignity and freedom. A 2-state solution is the only way here. Of course, with this, the nitty-gritty will be who gets custody of the car and who gets custody of the cat.
173
-
172
-
172
-
Surely the key thing in this debate is the preference and rights of biological females as it's they who are potentially having their private spaces occupied. My guess (but it’s a guess based on extensive experience) would be that the vast majority of women (ie with cervix) wouldn’t want biological men in their private spaces, regardless of whether these men self-identify as “women”, and even if they have fully transitioned through physical/chemical castration. Put it this way: if I were a young mum taking her pre-teen child to the public swimming pool, would I want biological men (regardless of their trans status) sharing the changing rooms with me? Answer: no. This does not mean I’m “anti-trans”; it means I am pro-protecting safe spaces for biological women. I don’t care how you self-identify, just as long as your chosen identity doesn’t adversely affect my life. The analogy would be with organised religion: I’m agnostic. Believe in and worship what you want, but when this unfavourably impinges on my life, that’s when my hackles are raised. Religion should be a private matter and not pervade the public sphere and potentially adversely affect the lives of others. With trans people, they can do what they want within the law, express themselves how they want, call themselves what they want (and I will honour this), but if the majority of biological females don’t want them actually physically invading their private spaces, this wish should be honoured in practice.
171
-
169
-
169
-
168
-
168
-
167
-
165
-
163
-
161
-
158
-
157
-
157
-
156
-
155
-
153
-
Just watched a report on the BBC where the reporter was wringing his hands asking “What could have caused this?”
Well, how about following a medieval book, the Quran, which has 123 verses that call for fighting and killing anyone who does not agree with the statement, “There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet.” Jews and Christians are specifically included among such “infidels.”
The Quran’s Sura 5:33 says about infidels, “They shall be slain or crucified, or have their hands and feet cut off.” Sura 9:5 says, “Slay the infidels wherever you find them ... and lie in wait for them ... and establish every stratagem (of war against them).” Sura 47:4-9 promises paradise to whoever cuts off the head of an infidel.
Here’s the difference: back in the day Christians followed the Bible to the letter, more or less. However, Europe underwent an Enlightenment 250 years ago and literal readings of Biblical scripture gave way to more nuanced interpretations. That hasn’t happened with Islam. No Reformation. No Enlightenment. Just a billion people willing to take a primitive, manmade text at face value and to the letter.
152
-
152
-
152
-
151
-
150
-
148
-
148
-
145
-
144
-
144
-
143
-
141
-
141
-
141
-
140
-
140
-
139
-
139
-
139
-
138
-
137
-
137
-
137
-
137
-
136
-
135
-
134
-
134
-
Here’s the difference, as it stands: if I were a famous public figure and publicly castigated Jesus, or Krishna, or Buddha, or Moses, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, very likely nothing would happen to me. However, if I publicly lambasted Muhammad, I’d be very likely forced to watch my back for the rest of my life. Just ask Salman Rushdie (and this teacher who, btw, didn’t even criticise Muhammad; he just showed a damn picture!) Islam’s intolerance to criticism is anathema. As an agnostic, I have zero time for all organised religion, but the one I least trust currently is Islam, as it’s the only one that seems to demand most respect for its values, whilst simultaneously giving least respect for others’ values.
134
-
134
-
134
-
133
-
132
-
‘Total victory’? Get a grip, Benji.
If my next-door neighbour repressed and oppressed me for 75 years (after evicting me from my home), just because they could (i.e. massive military support from elsewhere), then did you honestly think that at some point I wouldn’t punch back? Last time I checked, in a fist-fight, both fighters are allowed to throw punches. That doesn’t mean that what Hamas did on October 7th was justified, but it was hardly unpredictable. As Isaac Asimov said: I remember how it was in 1948 when Israel was being established and all my Jewish friends were ecstatic. I was not. I said: what are we doing? We are establishing ourselves in a ghetto, in a small corner of a vast Muslim sea. The Muslims will never forget nor forgive, and Israel, as long as it exists, will be embattled. Until a 2-state solution that is just for both parties is implemented, this nightmare will never end.
130
-
130
-
129
-
129
-
129
-
128
-
128
-
127
-
127
-
126
-
If my next-door neighbour repressed and oppressed me for 75 years (after evicting me from my home), just because they could (i.e. massive military support from elsewhere), then did you honestly think that at some point I wouldn’t punch back? Last time I checked, in a fist-fight, both fighters are allowed to throw punches. That doesn’t mean that what Hamas did on October 7th was justified, but it was hardly unpredictable. As Isaac Asimov said: I remember how it was in 1948 when Israel was being established and all my Jewish friends were ecstatic. I was not. I said: what are we doing? We are establishing ourselves in a ghetto, in a small corner of a vast Muslim sea. The Muslims will never forget nor forgive, and Israel, as long as it exists, will be embattled. Until a 2-state solution that is just for both parties is implemented, this nightmare will never end.
126
-
125
-
125
-
125
-
124
-
124
-
124
-
124
-
121
-
I am frequently asked if I have visited Israel, whereas yet, it is simply assumed that I have. Well, I don’t travel. I really don’t, and if I did, I probably wouldn’t visit Israel. I remember how it was in 1948 when Israel was being established and all my Jewish friends were ecstatic. I was not. I said: what are we doing? We are establishing ourselves in a ghetto, in a small corner of a vast Muslim sea. The Muslims will never forget nor forgive, and Israel, as long as it exists, will be embattled. I was laughed at, but I was right. I can’t help but feel that the Jews didn’t really have the right to appropriate a territory only because 2000 years ago, people they consider their ancestors, were living there. History moves on and you can’t really turn it back. (Isaac Asimov)
Of course, history has proved Asimov right. However, now that we’re here, if Israel has a right to exist as a state (and it does IMO), then so does Palestine. Until this is acknowledged by the relevant parties and properly implemented (with justice and freedom and dignity for both sides), this nightmare will be doomed to be repeated on a loop ad infinitum into eternity.
121
-
120
-
119
-
118
-
118
-
117
-
116
-
116
-
115
-
115
-
115
-
115
-
114
-
114
-
113
-
113
-
112
-
112
-
111
-
110
-
110
-
110
-
110
-
110
-
110
-
109
-
109
-
109
-
109
-
109
-
108
-
108
-
107
-
If my next-door neighbour repressed and oppressed me for 75 years (after evicting me from my home), just because they could (ie. massive military support from elsewhere), then did you honestly think that at some point I wouldn’t punch back? Last time I checked, in a fist-fight, both fighters are allowed to throw punches. That doesn’t mean that what Hamas did on October 7th was justified, but it was hardly unpredictable. As Isaac Asimov said: I remember how it was in 1948 when Israel was being established and all my Jewish friends were ecstatic. I was not. I said: what are we doing? We are establishing ourselves in a ghetto, in a small corner of a vast Muslim sea. The Muslims will never forget nor forgive, and Israel, as long as it exists, will be embattled. Until a 2-state solution that is just for both parties is implemented, this nightmare will never end.
106
-
106
-
106
-
106
-
105
-
104
-
104
-
103
-
103
-
I am frequently asked if I have visited Israel, whereas yet, it is simply assumed that I have. Well, I don’t travel. I really don’t, and if I did, I probably wouldn’t visit Israel. I remember how it was in 1948 when Israel was being established and all my Jewish friends were ecstatic. I was not. I said: what are we doing? We are establishing ourselves in a ghetto, in a small corner of a vast Muslim sea. The Muslims will never forget nor forgive, and Israel, as long as it exists, will be embattled. I was laughed at, but I was right. I can’t help but feel that the Jews didn’t really have the right to appropriate a territory only because 2000 years ago, people they consider their ancestors, were living there. History moves on and you can’t really turn it back. (Isaac Asimov)
Of course, history has proved Asimov right. However, now that we’re here, if Israel has a right to exist as a state (and it does IMO), then so does Palestine. Until this is acknowledged by the relevant parties and properly implemented (with justice and freedom and dignity for both sides), this nightmare will be doomed to be repeated on a loop ad infinitum into eternity.
103
-
103
-
103
-
102
-
102
-
100
-
100
-
100
-
100
-
99
-
99
-
99
-
98
-
98
-
98
-
97
-
97
-
97
-
97
-
97
-
96
-
96
-
If my next-door neighbour repressed and oppressed me for 75 years, just because they could (ie. massive military support from elsewhere), then did you honestly think that at some point I wouldn’t punch back? Last time I checked, in a boxing match, both fighters are allowed to throw punches. That doesn’t mean that what Hamas did was justified, but it was hardly unpredictable, given the history. Until a 2-state solution that is just for both parties is implemented, this nightmare will never end. This is just obvious to anyone without intrinsic skin in this game. Of course, even in a 2-state solution, there will still be Hamasesque groups wanting the destruction of Israel, but that doesn’t invalidate the basic principle for the vast majority of ordinary Palestinians.
96
-
95
-
95
-
95
-
95
-
94
-
94
-
93
-
92
-
92
-
92
-
92
-
90
-
89
-
89
-
88
-
88
-
88
-
Whenever I hear about a religion story, any organised religion story, I’m comforted by the words of George Carlin: “Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!
But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money!” 🤣
88
-
88
-
88
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
As a lifelong agnostic, I have very little time for any organised religion. However, the thing that should be said is that I feel zero threat from any organised religion, bar one. If I were a public figure and publicly castigated Jesus, or Moses, or Krishna, or Buddha, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it’s very likely nothing would happen to me. If I publicly slagged off Muhammad, it’s quite likely there’d be a backlash and I’d be watching my back for the rest of my life. That’s the difference. Just ask Salman Rushdie or this teacher who, btw, didn’t even criticise Muhammad; he just showed a damn picture! Imagine living in a society where certain people are so offended by a cartoon, they threaten death to the person who showed it! It seems Islam is so trigger-sensitive it can’t take honest criticism, when it’s just a bunch of manmade ideas like all the rest.
86
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
84
-
84
-
84
-
84
-
84
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
82
-
82
-
82
-
82
-
82
-
82
-
81
-
81
-
81
-
81
-
81
-
81
-
Personally, I have no intrinsic issue with the existence of Israel; however, you don’t need to be Nostradamus to see that it was obvious that it would be more or less permanently targeted from day 1 after its 1948 creation, due to the way it was done and where it is. Isaac Asimov nailed this: I remember how it was in 1948 when Israel was being established and all my Jewish friends were ecstatic, I was not. I said: what are we doing? We are establishing ourselves in a ghetto, in a small corner of a vast Muslim sea. The Muslims will never forget nor forgive, and Israel, as long as it exists, will be embattled. I was laughed at, but I was right. I can’t help but feel that the Jews didn’t really have the right to appropriate a territory only because 2000 years ago, people they consider their ancestors were living there. History moves on and you can’t really turn it back.
81
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
79
-
79
-
79
-
79
-
Surely the key thing in this whole debate is the preference and rights of biological females as it's they who are potentially having their private spaces occupied. My guess (but it’s a guess based on extensive experience) would be that the vast majority of women (ie with cervix) wouldn’t want biological men in their private spaces, regardless of whether these men self-identify as “women”, and even if they have fully transitioned through physical/chemical castration. Put it this way: if I were a young mum taking her pre-teen child to the public swimming pool, would I want biological men (regardless of their trans status) sharing the changing rooms with me? Answer: no. This does not mean I’m “anti-trans”; it means I am pro-protecting safe spaces for biological women. I don’t care how you self-identify, just as long as your chosen identity doesn’t adversely affect my life. The analogy would be with organised religion: I’m agnostic; believe in and worship what you want, but when this unfavourably impinges on my life, that’s when my hackles are raised. Religion should be a private matter and not pervade the public sphere and potentially adversely affect the lives of others. With trans people, they can do what they want within the law, express themselves how they want, call themselves what they want (and I will honour this), but if the majority of biological females don’t want them actually physically invading their private spaces, this wish should be honoured in practice.
79
-
79
-
79
-
As a lifelong agnostic, I have very little time for any organised religion. However, the thing that should be said is that I feel zero threat from any organised religion, bar one. If I were a public figure and publicly castigated Jesus, or Moses, or Krishna, or Buddha, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it’s very likely nothing would happen to me. If I publicly slagged off Muhammad, it’s quite likely there’d be a backlash and I’d be watching my back for the rest of my life. That’s the difference. Just ask Salman Rushdie or the Batley teacher still in hiding 3 years after showing a caricature! Imagine living in a society where certain people are so offended by a cartoon, they threaten death to the person who showed it! For some reason, certain prevalent strands of Islam can’t take honest criticism, when it’s just a bunch of manmade ideas like all the rest.
78
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
As ever with these things, this boils down to the human tribal mentality linked to race (majority South Slavic Serbs v majority Kosovan Albanians), religion (majority Eastern Orthodox Christianity v majority Muslim) and language (majority Serbian v majority Albanian). When I consider who I am, my ‘ethnicity’ is next to meaningless. An accident of birth. Equally, I care not a jot about anyone else’s ethnicity when I judge another human being. As an agnostic, I see all organised religion as manmade and, essentially, a human control mechanism along with a comforting fairy tale to shore up the human fear of death. Yes, my language is fairly key to my identity but, as someone who speaks 3 other languages, the only reason English takes precedence is another accident of birth. All told, ethnicity, organised religion and language have so much to answer for when it comes to human internecine conflict.
77
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
76
-
76
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
2024 and we’re still doing this stuff. Never got the ‘hate what another human does when it comes to their sexual orientation’ memo. Makes utterly no sense. I tend to dislike people for their ideas, their beliefs, their opinions, their dress-sense, and not something over which they have utterly no say or control. It’s like dissing people with a different skin colour. Pointless. Not only pointless, but totally stupid and moronic, as no one chooses their skin colour, just as no one chooses their sexuality. But here’s the clincher for me: even if we did choose our skin colour and sexuality, it still wouldn’t bother me one iota that some random has a different skin colour or sexuality. The sooner we can move beyond this primitive nonsense as a species, the better. If it’s consenting adults, it’s quite simply no one else’s business what they get up to. To me, being homophobic is a bit like feeling resentful of someone digging Uranus because you’re not an astronomer! 🔭
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
Surely the key thing in this debate is the preference and rights of biological females as it's they who are potentially having their private spaces occupied. My guess (but it’s a guess based on extensive experience) would be that the vast majority of women (ie with cervix) wouldn’t want biological men in their private spaces, regardless of whether these men self-identify as ‘women’, and even if they have fully transitioned through physical/chemical castration. Put it this way: if I were a young mum taking her pre-teen child to the public swimming pool, would I want biological men (regardless of their trans status) sharing the changing rooms with me? Answer: no. This does not mean I’m “anti-trans”; it means I am pro-protecting safe spaces for biological women. I don’t care how you self-identify, just as long as your chosen identity doesn’t adversely affect my life. The analogy would be with organised religion: I’m agnostic. Believe in and worship what you want, but when this unfavourably impinges on my life, that’s when my hackles are raised. Religion should be a private matter and not pervade the public sphere and potentially adversely affect the lives of others. With trans people, they can do what they want within the law, express themselves how they want, call themselves what they want (and I will honour this), but if the majority of biological females don’t want them actually physically invading their private spaces, this wish should be honoured in practice.
71
-
71
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
Sharron is just speaking common sense which, as we know, isn’t so common these days. In this debate, sex and gender are consistently conflated. If you’re male you have the xy chromosome and if you’re female you have the xx. Most, but not all, people fall into one of these two biologically-determined sex categories. Hermaphroditism is rare but should be noted here. As is xx male syndrome. Gender, however, is a socially-determined free for all, and is essentially down to feelings: you can be biologically male and identify as (or feel) “female” and vice-versa, but you cannot actually biologically flip from one to the other. These latter cases of self-identified gender I have no issue with and as long as you’re harming no one, then identify however you want. I don’t care. For me, where the issue arises is specifically when biological males seek to be accepted into biological female categories, and thereby inveigle themselves into female spaces, whether physical public spaces or spaces solely the preserve of females, such as female sports categories. This latter, for me, is as unfair as allowing an adult football team to play in an under-14s league. If a biological male person wants to identify as “female”, I personally have no problem with it; and if a biological female wants me to recognise them as “male”, again, I have no personal issue with this. It’s a free country after all and live and let live. It's when these same people (particularly trans women) claim patently unfair rights, as in Scotland recently, to invade the spaces that should be solely the preserve of biological females that my hackles are raised.
70
-
If you’re an illegal economic migrant, you can go; if you’re a genuine refugee, you can stay; if you’re any one of these and complaining about the accommodation, as long as you are safe, have food, and have a bed, I have no sympathy. As Ann says, a sure way to tell the real refugees from those just here for economic reasons, is the real asylum seekers would accept a warm bed, food, shelter and safety without complaint if they were genuinely fleeing life-threatening persecution/war.
70
-
Surely the key thing in this whole debate is the preference and rights of biological females as it's they who are potentially having their private spaces occupied. My guess (but it’s a guess based on extensive experience) would be that the vast majority of women (ie with cervix) wouldn’t want biological men in their private spaces, regardless of whether these men self-identify as “women”, and even if they have fully transitioned through physical/chemical castration. Put it this way: if I were a young mum taking her pre-teen child to the public swimming pool, would I want biological men (regardless of their trans status) sharing the changing rooms with me? Answer: no. This does not mean I’m “anti-trans”; it means I am pro-protecting safe spaces for biological women. I don’t care how you self-identify, just as long as your chosen identity doesn’t adversely affect my life. The analogy would be with organised religion: I’m agnostic. Believe in and worship what you want, but when this unfavourably impinges on my life, that’s when my hackles are raised. Religion should be a private matter and not pervade the public sphere and potentially adversely affect the lives of others. With trans people, they can do what they want within the law, express themselves how they want, call themselves what they want (and I will honour this), but if the majority of biological females don’t want them actually physically invading their private spaces, this wish should be honoured in practice.
70
-
70
-
70
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
Given Rochdale is 36% Muslim, it was more or less inevitable Galloway would win. Galloway is a friend to Islam. He’s had 3 Islamic wives at this point. But not necessarily at the same time. This is not a Labour v Galloway thing. The real issue here is Islam. If you’re not a friend to Islam, and you make it public, this can cause you trouble. If I were a famous public figure and publicly slagged off Jesus, or Yaweh, or Krishna, or Buddha, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it’s very likely nothing would happen to me. If I publicly castigated Muhammad, it’s quite likely there’d be a backlash and I’d be watching my back for the rest of my life. That’s the difference. Just ask Salman Rushdie. For some reason, certain prevalent strands of Islam can’t take honest criticism, when it’s just a bunch of manmade ideas like all the rest.
69
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
I am frequently asked if I have visited Israel, whereas yet, it is simply assumed that I have. Well, I don’t travel. I really don’t, and if I did, I probably wouldn’t visit Israel. I remember how it was in 1948 when Israel was being established and all my Jewish friends were ecstatic. I was not. I said: what are we doing? We are establishing ourselves in a ghetto, in a small corner of a vast Muslim sea. The Muslims will never forget nor forgive, and Israel, as long as it exists, will be embattled. I was laughed at, but I was right. I can’t help but feel that the Jews didn’t really have the right to appropriate a territory only because 2000 years ago, people they consider their ancestors, were living there. History moves on and you can’t really turn it back. (Isaac Asimov)
Of course, history has proved Asimov right. However, now that we’re here, if Israel has a right to exist as a state (and it does IMO), then so does Palestine. Until this is acknowledged by the relevant parties and properly implemented (with justice and freedom and dignity for both sides), this nightmare will be doomed to be repeated on a loop ad infinitum into eternity.
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
In this debate, sex and gender are consistently conflated. If you’re male you have the xy chromosome and if you’re female you have the xx. Most, but not all, people fall into one of these two biologically-determined sex categories. Hermaphroditism is rare but should be noted here. As is xx male syndrome. Gender, however, is a socially-determined free for all: you can be biologically male and identify as female and vice-versa. These latter cases of gender I have no issue with and as long as you’re harming no one, then identify however you want. For me, where the issue arises is when biological males seek to be accepted into biological female categories, and thereby inveigle themselves into female spaces. This, for me, is as unfair as allowing an adult football team to play in an under-14s league. If a biological male person wants to identify as “female”, I have no problem with it; it’s when these same people claim patently unfair rights to invade the spaces that should be solely the preserve of biological females, that my hackles are raised.
64
-
64
-
64
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
62
-
Never got the “hate what another human does when it comes to their sexual orientation” memo. Makes utterly no sense. I tend to dislike people for their ideas, their beliefs, their opinions, their dress-sense, and not something over which they have utterly no say or control. It’s like dissing people with different skin colour. Pointless. Not only pointless, but totally stupid and moronic, as no one chooses their skin colour, just as no one chooses their sexuality. But here’s the clincher for me: even if we did choose our skin colour and sexuality, it still wouldn’t bother me one iota that some random has a different skin colour or sexuality. The sooner we can move beyond this primitive nonsense as a species, the better. To me, being homophobic is a bit like feeling resentful of someone digging Uranus because you’re not an astronomer! 🔭
62
-
62
-
Surely the key thing in this debate is the preference and rights of biological females as it's they who are potentially having their private spaces occupied. My guess (but it’s a guess based on extensive experience) would be that the vast majority of women (ie with cervix) wouldn’t want biological men in their private spaces, regardless of whether these men self-identify as “women”, and even if they have fully transitioned through physical/chemical castration. Put it this way: if I were a young mum taking her pre-teen child to the public swimming pool, would I want biological men (regardless of their trans status) sharing the changing rooms with me? Answer: no. This does not mean I’m “anti-trans”; it means I am pro-protecting safe spaces for biological women. I don’t care how you self-identify, just as long as your chosen identity doesn’t adversely affect my life. The analogy would be with organised religion: I’m agnostic. Believe in and worship what you want, but when this unfavourably impinges on my life, that’s when my hackles are raised. Religion should be a private matter and not pervade the public sphere and potentially adversely affect the lives of others. With trans people, they can do what they want within the law, express themselves how they want, call themselves what they want (and I will honour this), but if the majority of biological females don’t want them actually physically invading their private spaces, this wish should be honoured in practice.
62
-
62
-
62
-
As this nightmare continues well into a 2nd month (and who knows how many more months after that), Israel should be surprised by none of what happened on October 7th, in much the same way Palestinians should be surprised by none of Israel’s response. Of course, what Hamas did was the definition of evil but it was hardly unpredictable. I genuinely don’t particularly support any side here (lapsed Catholic agnostic), but what can be observed (by any impartial neutral) is a 75-year-long ongoing fight whereby one side has been throwing its weight around considerably more than the other side (if the year on year casualty figures are anything to go by), yet when the other side finds the capability to strike back, the opponent is somehow surprised, as if that were just not cricket, old boy! Last time I checked, in a boxing match both sides are allowed to throw punches. In these kinds of seemingly intractable situations, I always flip it: how would the Israelis feel if the boot were on the other foot and it was they who were living in the conditions the average Palestinian is (and has been for decades) living in? They’d be fighting back. Fighting for dignity and freedom. A 2-state solution is the only way here. Of course, with this, the nitty-gritty will be who gets custody of the car and who gets custody of the cat.
62
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
Of course it should be legalised. Are we still doing this in 2023? 🤷♂️ Never got the “hate what another human does when it comes to their sexual preferences” memo. Makes utterly no sense. I tend to dislike people for their ideas, their beliefs, their opinions, their dress-sense, and not something over which they have utterly no say or control. It’s like dissing people with a different skin colour. Pointless. Not only pointless, but totally stupid and moronic, as no one chooses their skin colour, just as no one chooses their sexuality. But here’s the clincher for me: even if we did choose our skin colour and sexuality, it still wouldn’t bother me one iota that some random has a different skin colour or sexuality. The sooner we can move beyond this primitive nonsense as a species, the better. To me, being homophobic is a bit like feeling resentful of someone digging Uranus because you’re not an astronomer! 🔭
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
59
-
Interesting that in less-heated times back in 2018, while he was at an international forum in Sochi, which depicted Russia as a supposed victim of a theoretical nuclear exchange, Putin said: "In such a situation, we expect to be struck by nuclear weapons, but we will not use them first.” He added: "The aggressor will have to understand that retaliation is inevitable, that it will be destroyed and that we, as victims of aggression, as martyrs, will go to heaven.” It seems that when it comes to nukes Russia doesn’t have a first-strike policy. In fact, Russia and China have an agreed NFS policy. On the other hand, France, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States all maintain policies that permit the first use of nuclear weapons in a conflict.
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
Well this is silly but just a sign of the ongoing culture wars. Surely the key thing in this debate is the preference and rights of biological females as it's they who are potentially having their private spaces occupied. My guess (but it’s a guess based on extensive experience) would be that the vast majority of women (ie with cervix) wouldn’t want biological men in their private spaces, regardless of whether these men self-identify as “women”, and even if they have fully transitioned through physical/chemical castration. Put it this way: if I were a young mum taking her pre-teen child to the public swimming pool, would I want biological men (regardless of their trans status) sharing the changing rooms with me? Answer: no. This does not mean I’m “anti-trans”; it means I am pro-protecting safe spaces for biological women. I don’t care how you self-identify, just as long as your chosen identity doesn’t adversely affect my life. The analogy would be with organised religion: I’m agnostic. Believe in and worship what you want, but when this unfavourably impinges on my life, that’s when my hackles are raised. Religion should be a private matter and not pervade the public sphere and potentially adversely affect the lives of others. With trans people, they can do what they want within the law, express themselves how they want, call themselves what they want (and I will honour this), but if the majority of biological females don’t want them actually physically invading their private spaces, this wish should be honoured in practice.
56
-
56
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
Surely the key thing in this whole debate is the preference and rights of biological females as it's they who are potentially having their private spaces occupied. My guess (but it’s a guess based on extensive experience) would be that the vast majority of women (ie with cervix) wouldn’t want biological men in their private spaces, regardless of whether these men self-identify as “women”, and even if they have fully transitioned through physical/chemical castration. Put it this way: if I were a young mum taking her pre-teen child to the public swimming pool, would I want biological men (regardless of their trans status) sharing the changing rooms with me? Answer: no. This does not mean I’m “anti-trans”; it means I am pro-protecting safe spaces for biological women. I don’t care how you self-identify, just as long as your chosen identity doesn’t adversely affect my life. The analogy would be with organised religion: I’m agnostic. Believe in and worship what you want, but when this unfavourably impinges on my life, that’s when my hackles are raised. Religion should be a private matter and not pervade the public sphere and potentially adversely affect the lives of others. With trans people, they can do what they want within the law, express themselves how they want, call themselves what they want (and I will honour this), but if the majority of biological females don’t want them actually physically invading their private spaces, this wish should be honoured in practice.
52
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
Absolutely untrue. You just want to believe this. You need to look more closely. While India undoubtedly has a massive problem with male chauvinism generally, it’s interesting to note that on nearly all of the stats you check, it hovers around 2 per 100,000 of the population for reported rapes; compare that to, say, Iceland, which is regularly above 60 per 100,000, France, above 50 per 100,000 and in 2022, England and Wales, astonishingly, had a figure of 117 per 100,000 for reported rapes. Even if you factor in the unreported stuff in India (bearing in mind there will also be unreported stuff elsewhere), the stats seem to suggest that India actually has one of the lowest rape rates on the planet.
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
I am frequently asked if I have visited Israel, whereas yet, it is simply assumed that I have. Well, I don’t travel. I really don’t, and if I did, I probably wouldn’t visit Israel. I remember how it was in 1948 when Israel was being established and all my Jewish friends were ecstatic. I was not. I said: what are we doing? We are establishing ourselves in a ghetto, in a small corner of a vast Muslim sea. The Muslims will never forget nor forgive, and Israel, as long as it exists, will be embattled. I was laughed at, but I was right. I can’t help but feel that the Jews didn’t really have the right to appropriate a territory only because 2000 years ago, people they consider their ancestors, were living there. History moves on and you can’t really turn it back. (Isaac Asimov)
Of course, history has proved Asimov right. However, now that we’re here, if Israel has a right to exist as a state (and it does IMO), then so does Palestine. Until this is acknowledged by the relevant parties and properly implemented (with justice and freedom and dignity for both sides), this nightmare will be doomed to be repeated on a loop ad infinitum into eternity.
48
-
I am frequently asked if I have visited Israel, whereas yet, it is simply assumed that I have. Well, I don’t travel. I really don’t, and if I did, I probably wouldn’t visit Israel. I remember how it was in 1948 when Israel was being established and all my Jewish friends were ecstatic. I was not. I said: what are we doing? We are establishing ourselves in a ghetto, in a small corner of a vast Muslim sea. The Muslims will never forget nor forgive, and Israel, as long as it exists, will be embattled. I was laughed at, but I was right. I can’t help but feel that the Jews didn’t really have the right to appropriate a territory only because 2000 years ago, people they consider their ancestors, were living there. History moves on and you can’t really turn it back. (Isaac Asimov)
Of course, history has proved Asimov right. However, now that we’re here, if Israel has a right to exist as a state (and it does IMO), then so does Palestine. Until this is acknowledged by the relevant parties and properly implemented (with justice and freedom and dignity for both sides), this nightmare will be doomed to be repeated on a loop ad infinitum into eternity.
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
According to official government stats, the top 5 nationalities arriving illegally into the UK via Channel boats from July 2021-June 2023 are Iran, Albania, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. What do these countries have in common? Every single one has a massive Muslim majority population. Even Albania, which I was surprised to discover is nearly 60% Muslim. In principle, I have no intrinsic issue with immigration, provided it is legal and strictly controlled. What we have here is a free for all. A free for all led by Islam. As a secular agnostic, I mistrust all organised religion, but the one I most mistrust, in the world currently as it stands, is Islam. Wherever it goes and wherever it rubs up against antithetical cultures it seems there is trouble. The UK currently has a 7% Muslim population. Current projections predict it will be 17% by 2050. By 2050 Sweden is predicted to have a 30% Muslim population; a third of Sweden will be Islamic. Interesting times. If you drop a drip of red dye into a bath full of water it doesn’t show up. If you pour a bucket of red dye into the same bath, it changes it instantly forever. There’s a lot to be said for gradualism.
47
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
Part of the issue here, and part of the issue in all places with miscegenation is the subtle difference between ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘multiracialism’. For societies to function optimally, you need folks pulling in more or less the same direction. With multiculturalism you tend to have this individual culture and that individual culture operating in their own little milieu within the greater milieu. Obviously, this isn’t optimal for social cohesion. Multiracialism, however, allows for a Chinese, a French, a Nigerian, a Brazilian, an American, an Australian and a penguin to live in harmony, without the imposition of one’s cultural heritage on a host society. The other thing to note here is organised religion. We in the relatively secular West completely mistrust organised religion. As long as folks just do their thing without imposing it on others, then this gig will swing along just fine.
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
Yeah, but that could be because anyone who is not a Muslim doesn’t trust Islam. As a lifelong agnostic, I have very little time for any organised religion. However, the thing that should be said is that I feel zero threat from any organised religion, bar one. If I were a public figure and publicly castigated Jesus, or Moses, or Krishna, or Buddha, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it’s very likely nothing would happen to me. If I publicly slagged off Muhammad, it’s quite likely there’d be a backlash and I’d be watching my back for the rest of my life. That’s the difference. Just ask Salman Rushdie. It seems Islam is so trigger-sensitive it can’t take honest criticism, when it’s just a bunch of manmade ideas like all the rest.
44
-
I am frequently asked if I have visited Israel, whereas yet, it is simply assumed that I have. Well, I don’t travel. I really don’t, and if I did, I probably wouldn’t visit Israel. I remember how it was in 1948 when Israel was being established and all my Jewish friends were ecstatic, I was not. I said: what are we doing? We are establishing ourselves in a ghetto, in a small corner of a vast Muslim sea. The Muslims will never forget nor forgive, and Israel, as long as it exists, will be embattled. I was laughed at, but I was right. I can’t help but feel that the Jews didn’t really have the right to appropriate a territory only because 2000 years ago, people they consider their ancestors, were living there. History moves on and you can’t really turn it back. (Isaac Asimov)
Of course, history has proved Asimov right. However, now that we’re here, if Israel has a right to exist as a state (and it does imo), then so does Palestine. Until this is acknowledged and properly implemented, there will be no end to this.
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
Sharron is just speaking common sense which, as we know, isn’t so common these days. In this debate, sex and gender are consistently conflated. If you’re male you have the xy chromosome and if you’re female you have the xx. Most, but not all, people fall into one of these two biologically-determined sex categories. Hermaphroditism is rare but should be noted here. As is xx male syndrome. Gender, however, is a socially-determined free for all, and is essentially down to feelings: you can be biologically male and identify as (or feel) ‘female’ and vice-versa, but you cannot actually biologically flip from one to the other. These latter cases of self-identified gender I have no issue with and as long as you’re harming no one, then identify however you want. I don’t care. For me, where the issue arises is specifically when biological males seek to be accepted into biological female categories, and thereby inveigle themselves into female spaces, whether physical public spaces or spaces solely the preserve of females, such as female sports categories. This latter, for me, is as unfair as allowing an adult football team to play in an under-14s league. If a biological male person wants to identify as ‘female’, I personally have no problem with it; and if a biological female wants me to recognise them as ‘male’, again, I have no personal issue with this. It’s a free country after all and live and let live. It's when these same people (particularly trans women) claim patently unfair rights, as in Scotland recently, to invade the spaces that should be solely the preserve of biological females that my hackles are raised.
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
I disagree with Farage about lots of things, but he’s spot on about this stuff. As a lifelong agnostic, I have very little time for any organised religion. However, the thing that should be said is that I feel zero threat from any organised religion, bar one. If I were a public figure and publicly castigated Jesus, or Moses, or Krishna, or Buddha, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it’s very likely nothing would happen to me. If I publicly slagged off Muhammad, it’s quite likely there’d be a backlash and I’d be watching my back for the rest of my life. That’s the difference. Just ask Salman Rushdie or the Batley teacher who, btw, didn’t even criticise Muhammad; he just showed a damn picture! Imagine living in a society where certain people are so offended by a cartoon, they threaten death to the person who showed it! If certain people are so ‘offended’ by a cartoon, then it’s time to question the belief, not the cartoon. It seems Islam is so trigger-sensitive it can’t take honest criticism, when it’s just a bunch of manmade ideas like all the rest. Never let anyone tell you it’s ‘racist’ or a ‘hate-crime’ to criticise Islam. Islam is a belief-system held by people of multifarious races. Islam seems to think it’s entitled to a free pass when it comes to scrutiny. If Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Spaghettiism, etc. are subject to criticism, then Islam is too.
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
I’m struck by how the Russia/Ukraine thing is so desperate and pointless, given the shared cultural/linguistic heritage between the two. It’s akin to England bombing Scotland for the latter having the temerity to vote for self-determination and existence as a sovereign state. That stupid. That pointless. That mad. But then I, an agnostic, think of the Bible. The first murder? Cain and Abel. Brothers. It’s an old, sad, sorry song. Also, If you look at a map of Europe, and you look at the extent of the NATO countries to 1997, they extend as far east as Germany. After 1997, NATO expanded like a cancerous growth (as Putin sees it), to encompass 14 other nations, geographically extending as far east as Estonia and Latvia (crucially, from Putin’s point of view, ex-USSR components.) Now look at Ukraine on this map. A further incursion east, by a state with a majority looking west, not east. A further former ex-USSR component eating into (as Putin sees it) the motherland Russia. Now, I’m no supporter of Putin. He’s wrong to aggressively invade a sovereign, self-governing territory, in my opinion. However, this notwithstanding, I can fully see how, just by looking at a map and the physical geography, Putin might feel threatened and a little boxed in. It’s akin to Canada and Mexico joining a Russia-led alliance and not expecting the USA to take aggressive action. But then the double-standards modus operandi of the west was always hiding in plain sight. Does any of this justify his behaviour? Not a jot.
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
As a lifelong agnostic, I have very little time for any organised religion. However, the thing that should be said is that I feel zero threat from any organised religion, bar one. If I were a public figure and publicly castigated Jesus, or Moses, or Krishna, or Buddha, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it’s very likely nothing would happen to me. If I publicly slagged off Muhammad, it’s quite likely there’d be a backlash and I’d be watching my back for the rest of my life. That’s the difference. Just ask Salman Rushdie or the Batley teacher who, btw, didn’t even criticise Muhammad; he just showed a damn picture! Imagine living in a society where certain people are so offended by a cartoon, they threaten death to the person who showed it! It seems Islam is so trigger-sensitive it can’t take honest criticism, when it’s just a bunch of manmade ideas like all the rest.
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
@Sam-zu5mr Uh huh. And what’s that got to do with the fact you can’t alter XX and XY chromosomes that are biologically given at birth? Look, here’s the deal: Surely the key thing in this whole debate is the preference and rights of biological females as it's they who are potentially having their private spaces occupied. My guess (but it’s a guess based on extensive experience) would be that the vast majority of women (ie with cervix) wouldn’t want biological men in their private spaces, regardless of whether these men self-identify as ‘women’, and even if they have fully transitioned through physical/chemical castration. Put it this way: if I were a young mum taking her pre-teen child to the public swimming pool, would I want biological men (regardless of their trans status) sharing the changing rooms with me? Answer: no. This does not mean I’m ‘anti-trans’; it means I am pro-protecting safe spaces for biological women. I don’t care how you self-identify, just as long as your chosen identity doesn’t adversely affect my life. The analogy would be with organised religion: I’m agnostic; believe in and worship what you want, but when this unfavourably impinges on my life, that’s when my hackles are raised. Religion should be a private matter and not pervade the public sphere and potentially adversely affect the lives of others. With trans people, they can do what they want within the law, express themselves how they want, call themselves what they want (and I will honour this), but if the majority of biological females don’t want them actually physically invading their private spaces, this wish should be honoured in practice.
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
Apparently, it’s illegal to defame, insult, or threaten the monarch of Thailand (king, queen, heir-apparent, heir-presumptive, or regent). Modern Thai lèse-majesté law has been on the statute books since 1908. Thailand is the only constitutional monarchy to have strengthened its lèse-majesté law since World War II. What a nonsense! Everything and everyone on this planet should be open to criticism without fear or favour. If any regime, monarchical or otherwise, is imprisoning someone for simply exercising their human right to free-speech, you can be sure that regime is insecure about its position.
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
Never got the “hate what another human does when it comes to their sexual preferences” memo. Makes utterly no sense. I tend to dislike people for their ideas, their beliefs, their opinions, their dress-sense, and not something over which they have utterly no say or control. It’s like dissing people with a different skin colour. Pointless. Not only pointless, but totally stupid and moronic, as no one chooses their skin colour, just as no one chooses their sexuality. But here’s the clincher for me: even if we did choose our skin colour and sexuality, it still wouldn’t bother me one iota that some random has a different skin colour or sexuality. The sooner we can move beyond this primitive nonsense as a species, the better. To me, being homophobic is a bit like feeling resentful of someone digging Uranus because you’re not an astronomer! 🔭
36
-
I am frequently asked if I have visited Israel, whereas yet, it is simply assumed that I have. Well, I don’t travel. I really don’t, and if I did, I probably wouldn’t visit Israel. I remember how it was in 1948 when Israel was being established and all my Jewish friends were ecstatic. I was not. I said: what are we doing? We are establishing ourselves in a ghetto, in a small corner of a vast Muslim sea. The Muslims will never forget nor forgive, and Israel, as long as it exists, will be embattled. I was laughed at, but I was right. I can’t help but feel that the Jews didn’t really have the right to appropriate a territory only because 2000 years ago, people they consider their ancestors, were living there. History moves on and you can’t really turn it back. (Isaac Asimov)
Of course, history has proved Asimov right. However, now that we’re here, if Israel has a right to exist as a state (and it does IMO), then so does Palestine. Until this is acknowledged by the relevant parties and properly implemented (with justice and freedom and dignity for both sides), this nightmare will be doomed to be repeated on a loop ad infinitum into eternity.
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
I’ve always found it interesting when Europeans who consider themselves ‘indigenous’ to this continent and more entitled thereby compared to other less-entitled, ‘non-indigenous’ folk, suddenly go silent when America is mentioned, or Australia, or New Zealand, or Mexico, or Peru, or Brazil; for by their logic no European who arrived post 1519 in Mexico, post 1524 in Peru, post 1500 in Brazil, post 1620 in America, and no European who arrived after 1606 in Australia and in New Zealand after 1642 has more entitlement than the ‘indigenous’ Aborigines. Not to mention all the African and Indian nonsense that went on as Europeans arrived and aggressively imposed their ways. No, somehow it’s ok that European settlers moved to these places and brutally subjugated (and in millions of cases, enslaved) those already settled there, but when non-Europeans arrive in Europe, to work, to seek a better life in most cases, somehow that’s just not on. Hypocrisy and double-standards doesn’t begin to cover it, and those who moan about immigration into Europe have not a leg to stand on when a few non-Europeans pitch up in their backyard to play.
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
One of the intriguing things about this is how most of the interviewees seemed to have basic, even negligible, French skills and yet how close they are to the French border. One would think that as with, say Nice, where Italian proximity seems to make most of the French inhabitants there seem bilingual in French and Italian, that a similar phenomenon would obtain here in Barcelona. But no. It seems to work a bit better on the other side of the Pyrenees, where in San Sebastián I encountered many trilingual people (Basque, Spanish, French), old and young, and actually this phenomenon lingered as far west as Bilbao, to a certain extent. I suppose what I’m saying is that I expected that far more French-speaking Barcelonais would be randomly found on the streets of Barcelona than is the case in this sample. 🇪🇸
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
Putin: “But, brother, we are fellow Slavs, speak the same language, you must be with me, no?”
Ukrainian: “‘Brother’ is overstating it. Cousins, at best, is how I would put it. Yes, I speak your language, but you don’t speak mine, and no, I must go where my conscience dictates, not where you dictate. Understand this and we can get along.”
33
-
33
-
In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes a Brit and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet a Brit, and nothing but a Brit ... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is a Brit, but something else also, isn't a Brit at all. We have room for but one flag, the British flag … We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language … and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the British people. (Theodore Roosevelt)
N.B. All that’s been changed here is ‘British’ has replaced ‘American’. This speech could be used for every sovereign self-governing territory on Earth. The only other thing I would say concerns the language question: I don’t care if you speak 1 language or 5 languages, but whether it’s 1 or more, you should speak English fluently if you are living in Britain, French fluently in France etc.
33
-
33
-
33
-
I am frequently asked if I have visited Israel, whereas yet, it is simply assumed that I have. Well, I don’t travel. I really don’t, and if I did, I probably wouldn’t visit Israel. I remember how it was in 1948 when Israel was being established and all my Jewish friends were ecstatic. I was not. I said: what are we doing? We are establishing ourselves in a ghetto, in a small corner of a vast Muslim sea. The Muslims will never forget nor forgive, and Israel, as long as it exists, will be embattled. I was laughed at, but I was right. I can’t help but feel that the Jews didn’t really have the right to appropriate a territory only because 2000 years ago, people they consider their ancestors, were living there. History moves on and you can’t really turn it back. (Isaac Asimov)
Of course, history has proved Asimov right. However, now that we’re here, if Israel has a right to exist as a state (and it probably does IMO), then so does Palestine. Until this is acknowledged by the relevant parties and properly implemented (with justice and freedom and dignity for both sides), this nightmare will be doomed to be repeated on a loop ad infinitum into eternity.
33
-
Looks like we might have an imminent ‘hostage currency’ situation. In 2011, Israel released more than 1,000 Palestinians in exchange for 1 Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit. A few days ago Hamas were demanding the release of 6,000 Palestinians detained in Israel’s jails for the release of the 150 or so Israeli captives. At the 2011 hostage currency rate 150 Israelis would be equal to 900,000 Palestinians! Judging by the past exchanges, if I were Israel, at this point, I might be liable to take the 6,000 for 150 offer, as comparatively it seems like a good deal.
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
If, for example, certain people are so ‘offended’ by a cartoon, then it’s time to question the belief, not the cartoon. If certain other people are so ‘offended’ by someone suggesting they might not be biologically what they claim they are, it’s time to question the belief, not the questioner. This goes for everything. ‘Offence’ is taken, never given. You can’t be offended against your will. Stephen Fry summed this up for me when he said: “It’s now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so f*cking what?”
In other words, no one has the right not to be offended.
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
Fully with Rowling on this matter. Surely the key thing in this whole debate is the preference and rights of biological females as it's they who are potentially having their private spaces occupied by biological men. My guess (but it’s a guess based on extensive experience) would be that the vast majority of women (i.e. with cervix) wouldn’t want biological men in their private spaces, regardless of whether these men self-identify as ‘women’, and even if they have fully transitioned through physical/chemical castration. Put it this way: if I were a young mum taking her pre-teen child to the public swimming pool, would I want biological men (regardless of their trans status) sharing the changing rooms with me? Answer: no. This does not mean I’m ‘anti-trans’; it means I am pro-protecting safe spaces for biological women. I don’t care how you self-identify, just as long as your chosen identity doesn’t adversely affect my life. The analogy would be with organised religion: I’m agnostic; believe in and worship what you want, but when this unfavourably impinges on my life, that’s when my hackles are raised. Religion should be a private matter and not pervade the public sphere and potentially adversely affect the lives of others. With trans women, they can do what they want within the law, express themselves how they want, call themselves what they want (and I will honour this), but if the majority of biological females don’t want them actually physically invading their private spaces, this wish should be honoured in practice.
32
-
Spain is regularly the world’s second most visited country, behind France. Tourism is 12% of its economy. If it wants to take the economic hit, let it go ahead. That said, I understand the complainers’ issue. It’s the same here in the centre of Edinburgh, particularly during Festival season. There needs to be a balance between the passing tourist and the permanent local; at the moment, in too many places, the passing tourist is clearly favoured. On the wider point, it is a shame that so many places (particularly in Europe) are more open-air museums/theme parks than living, breathing, working, organic cities.
31
-
31
-
31
-
Anyone without skin in this game can see the game. If my next-door neighbour repressed and oppressed me for 75 years (after evicting me from my home), just because they could (i.e. massive military support from elsewhere), then did you honestly think that at some point I wouldn’t punch back? Last time I checked, in a fist-fight, both fighters are allowed to throw punches. That doesn’t mean that what Hamas did on October 7th was justified, but it was hardly unpredictable. As Isaac Asimov said: I remember how it was in 1948 when Israel was being established and all my Jewish friends were ecstatic. I was not. I said: what are we doing? We are establishing ourselves in a ghetto, in a small corner of a vast Muslim sea. The Muslims will never forget nor forgive, and Israel, as long as it exists, will be embattled. Until a 2-state solution that is just for both parties is implemented, this nightmare will never end.
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
Israel bangs on about its hostages, as if it’s a totally innocent party here. 🤦♂️ If my next-door neighbour repressed and oppressed me for 75 years (after evicting me from my home), just because they could (i.e. massive military support from elsewhere), then did you honestly think that at some point I wouldn’t punch back? Last time I checked, in a fist-fight, both fighters are allowed to throw punches. That doesn’t mean that what Hamas did on October 7th was justified, but it was hardly unpredictable. As Isaac Asimov said: I remember how it was in 1948 when Israel was being established and all my Jewish friends were ecstatic. I was not. I said: what are we doing? We are establishing ourselves in a ghetto, in a small corner of a vast Muslim sea. The Muslims will never forget nor forgive, and Israel, as long as it exists, will be embattled. Until a 2-state solution that is just for both parties is implemented, this nightmare will never end.
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
As ever with these things, this boils down to the human tribal mentality linked to race (majority South Slavic Serbs v majority Kosovan Albanians) religion (majority Eastern Orthodox Christianity v majority Muslim) and language (majority Serbian v majority Albanian). When I consider who I am, my ‘ethnicity’ is next to meaningless. An accident of birth. Equally, I care not a jot about anyone else’s ethnicity when I judge another human being. As an agnostic, I see all organised religion as manmade and, essentially, a human control mechanism along with a comforting fairy tale to shore up the human fear of death. Yes, my language is fairly key to my identity, but as someone who speaks 3 other languages, the only reason English takes precedence is another accident of birth. All told, ethnicity, organised religion and language have so much to answer for when it comes to human internecine conflict.
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
❄️ ⛄️ Crazy stuff! If this gets much worse they may have to alter the State names accordingly: could soon be seeing ‘Blew Jersey’, ‘Thawaii’, ‘Georjackfrost’, ‘Pennsylweathervania’, ‘Kansice’, ‘Massachillsetts’, ‘Califognia’, ‘New Hampshiver’, ‘Wicesconsin’, ‘Texice’, ‘Mittensota’, ‘Windiana’, ‘Buryland’, ‘Frozen Riverginia’, ‘Godforsakentucky’, ‘Connecticold’, ‘Flurryda’, ‘Slideaho’, ‘Snowshoe York’, ‘Iowhiteout’, ‘Michighandwarmers’, ‘Tennessleet’, ‘New Mexicool’, ‘Alaskia’, ‘Chillinois’, ‘Rhode Iceland’, ‘Mainedeer’, ‘North/South Dacoata’, ‘Coolorado’, ‘Rawest Virginia’, ‘Wysnowing’, ‘Uthaw’, ‘North/South Barrelina’, ‘Arizsnowa’, ‘Nevada’ - no change needed as already means ‘snowy mountains’, ‘Montanavalanche’, ‘Shivermont’, ‘Missfury’, ‘Delaglare’, ‘Starkansas’, ‘Thawregon’, ‘Oklabomba’, ‘Washingtoboggan’, ‘Squallabama’, ‘Nebbbrrrraska’, ‘Snowhio’, ‘Louicyana’ and ‘Missiceslippy’! 🥶
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
Why should anyone be surprised by this? Given Rochdale is 36% Muslim, it was more or less inevitable Galloway would win. Galloway is a friend to Islam. He’s had 3 Islamic wives at this point. But not necessarily at the same time. This is not a Labour v Galloway thing. The real issue here is Islam. If you’re not a friend to Islam, and you make it public, this can cause you trouble. If I were a famous public figure and publicly slagged off Jesus, or Yaweh, or Krishna, or Buddha, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it’s very likely nothing would happen to me. If I publicly castigated Muhammad, it’s quite likely there’d be a backlash and I’d be watching my back for the rest of my life. That’s the difference. Just ask Salman Rushdie. For some reason, certain prevalent strands of Islam can’t take honest criticism, when it’s just a bunch of manmade ideas like all the rest.
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
As this nightmare continues well into a 2nd month (and who knows how many more months after that), Israel should be surprised by none of what happened on October 7th, in much the same way Palestinians should be surprised by none of Israel’s response. Of course, what Hamas did was the definition of evil but it was hardly unpredictable. I genuinely don’t particularly support any side here (lapsed Catholic agnostic), but what can be observed (by any impartial neutral) is a 75-year-long ongoing fight whereby one side has been throwing its weight around considerably more than the other side (if the year-on-year casualty figures are anything to go by), yet when the other side finds the capability to genuinely strike back, the opponent is somehow surprised, as if that were just not cricket, old boy! Last time I checked, in a fist-fight both sides are allowed to throw punches. In these kinds of seemingly intractable situations, I always flip it: how would the Israelis feel if the boot were on the other foot and it was they who were living in the conditions the average Palestinian is (and has been for decades) living in? They’d be fighting back. Fighting for dignity and freedom. A 2-state solution is the only way here. Of course, with this, the nitty-gritty will be who gets custody of the car and who gets custody of the cat.
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
Frankly, no idea why anyone else should be butting in with what a woman does with her own body. It’s her choice. Simply no one else’s business (aside from the father in the given case.) Those who bore on about the “rights of the unborn” seem to be overestimating human life. I’m willing to bet that if you asked 100 people randomly whether they would have wanted to be born (knowing what we do as humans), the vast majority of them would decline the offer. Invariably, it’s those holy rollers who adhere to primitive scriptures written by men thousands of years ago who cause all the trouble here. It’s no accident that abortion rights are such a hot topic in the US, a country with an alarmingly high belief in invisible daddies in the sky. Preventing legal access to abortion doesn’t stop abortions from happening, it just prevents safe abortions as women will seek dangerous underground methods if the legal option is denied them. Another thing that’s always confused me in this debate is how the pro-lifers in the US are oh so keen to “protect the life of the unborn” by denying legal access to abortion, but are quite free and easy with the lives of the born, and are all for any Tom, Dick or Dirty Harry buying a gun like they’re buying candy from a store and going out and shooting up a school every other week. Seems like there’s a contradiction there. Personally, my only issue with abortion is pain. Does the unborn fetus feel pain? On this basis, it should be done as early as possible in the gestation but the bottom line here is simple: it’s a woman’s right to choose what she does with her own body.
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
@3:37 “You know, I have friends who are aristocrats, I have friends who are upper-class, I have friends who are working-class … well, not working-class .” (My emphasis) And that, dear Reader, is why if Sunak becomes PM, he stands not a chance of holding those working-class northern seats the Tories won under Bozo; as, for all Johnson’s posho privilege, he had a disjointed, buffoonish charisma that cut through to ex-Labour voters, that Sunak can only dream of having. Labour, for all their current lacklustre lack of identity and policy, must be genuinely looking on and thinking … “yep, we just might.”
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
Surely the key thing in this whole debate is the preference and rights of biological females as it's they who are potentially having their private spaces occupied. My guess (but it’s a guess based on extensive experience) would be that the vast majority of women (ie with cervix) wouldn’t want biological men in their private spaces, regardless of whether these men self-identify as “women”, and even if they have fully transitioned through physical/chemical castration. Put it this way: if I were a young mum taking her pre-teen child to the public swimming pool, would I want biological men (regardless of their trans status) sharing the changing rooms with me? Answer: no. This does not mean I’m “anti-trans”; it means I am pro-protecting safe spaces for biological women. I don’t care how you self-identify, just as long as your chosen identity doesn’t adversely affect my life. The analogy would be with organised religion: I’m agnostic; believe in and worship what you want, but when this unfavourably impinges on my life, that’s when my hackles are raised. Religion should be a private matter and not pervade the public sphere and potentially adversely affect the lives of others. With trans people, they can do what they want within the law, express themselves how they want, call themselves what they want (and I will honour this), but if the majority of biological females don’t want them actually physically invading their private spaces, this wish should be honoured in practice.
29
-
Russia, the biggest country by landmass, twice the size of Canada, the second biggest; given this, why can’t those ‘Russians’ in Ukraine just move to Russia, if they are unhappy? Ukraine is a sovereign territory. Has been since 1991. Up until 2014, it seems ethnic Russians were ok with living in Ukraine, co-existing with non-ethnic Russian Ukrainians, much like the Flemish share what we call Belgium with the Walloons. My feeling about all this, and it’s just a guess, is that even the ethnic Russians in Ukraine would be quite happy to live in a sovereign, self-governing Ukraine. My strong feeling about all this, is that since at least 2014, Russia (Putin, mainly) has stirred the pot and played on potential ethnic tensions that actually weren’t really that strong. Again, I have no proof, but my instinct, having closely observed this for nine weeks, is that this is actually about one man more than anything. Putin just couldn’t get over the ‘greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th Century’ (his words), that is, the dissolution of the USSR, and as he is about to pop his clogs, he was impelled to take his revenge for this before he does shuffle off this mortal coil. We should not underestimate just how much this really is one man’s war, and on that score, it just bespeaks how primitive we still are as a species, when we don’t have mechanisms in place to deal with these outlying, power-tripping fuckwits.
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
Never got the “hate what another human does when it comes to their sexual preferences” memo. Makes utterly no sense. I tend to dislike people for their ideas, their beliefs, their opinions, their dress-sense, the way they treat others, and not something over which they have utterly no say or control. It’s like dissing people with different skin colour. Pointless. Not only pointless, but utterly stupid and moronic as no one chooses their skin colour, just as no one chooses their sexuality. But here’s the clincher for me: even if we did choose our skin colour and sexuality, it still wouldn’t bother me one iota that some random has a different skin colour or sexuality to me. The sooner we can move beyond this primitive nonsense as a species, the better. To me, being homophobic is a bit like feeling resentful of someone digging Uranus because you’re not an astronomer.
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
Not a fan of Paltrow, tbh. She comes across as an arrogant, entitled so and so. But, by the same token, to Sanderson: Come on, man. You are a retired ‘optometrist’, whose average salary, according to Forbes, is $120,000. You are 76. If some financial non-entity had ‘crashed’ into you, this would never have come to Court.
27
-
27
-
27
-
❄️ ⛄️ Crazy stuff! If this gets much worse they may have to alter the State names accordingly: could soon be seeing ‘Blew Jersey’, ‘Thawaii’, ‘Georjackfrost’, ‘Pennsylweathervania’, ‘Kansice’, ‘Massachillsetts’, ‘Califognia’, ‘New Hampshiver’, ‘Wicesconsin’, ‘Texice’, ‘Mittensota’, ‘Windiana’, ‘Buryland’, ‘Frozen Riverginia’, ‘Godforsakentucky’, ‘Connecticold’, ‘Flurryda’, ‘Slideaho’, ‘Snowshoe York’, ‘Iowhiteout’, ‘Michighandwarmers’, ‘Tennessleet’, ‘New Mexicool’, ‘Alaskia’, ‘Chillinois’, ‘Rhode Iceland’, ‘Mainedeer’, ‘North/South Dacoata’, ‘Coolorado’, ‘Rawest Virginia’, ‘Wysnowing’, ‘Uthaw’, ‘North/South Barrelina’, ‘Arizsnowa’, ‘Nevada’ - no change needed as already means ‘snowy mountains’, ‘Montanavalanche’, ‘Shivermont’, ‘Missfury’, ‘Delaglare’, ‘Starkansas’, ‘Thawregon’, ‘Oklabomba’, ‘Washingtoboggan’, ‘Squallabama’, ‘Nebbbrrrraska’, ‘Snowhio’, ‘Louicyana’ and ‘Missiceslippy’! 🥶
27
-
27
-
27
-
1:47 “The people of Rochdale voted for me.” Indeed, 39% Islamic Rochdale voted for that well-known friend to Islam, George Galloway. But here’s the deal with Islam: if I were a famous public figure and publicly slagged off Jesus, or Yaweh, or Krishna, or Buddha, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it’s very likely nothing would happen to me. If I publicly castigated Muhammad, it’s quite likely there’d be a backlash and I’d be watching my back for the rest of my life. That’s the difference. Just ask Salman Rushdie or the Batley teacher still in hiding 3 years after showing a cartoon! Imagine living in a society where certain people are so offended by a cartoon, they threaten death to the person who showed it. We live in that society. For some reason, certain prevalent strands of Islam can’t take honest criticism, when it’s just a bunch of manmade ideas like all the rest.
27
-
27
-
Why do so many other developed nations not have America’s baleful gun culture? Germany, the UK, Japan, for example, don’t seem to have this terrible issue with gun crime, and yet there is relative peace in terms of general society, and certainly mass killings are rare. America needs to seriously look at its Second Amendment. There are only three countries that have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms: Mexico, Guatemala, and the United States. Although Mexico and Guatemala both have a constitutional right to bear arms, the US is in a league of its own simply because it is the only country without restrictions on gun ownership in its constitution. After the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, it inspired other countries around the world to provide their citizens with the right to own guns. However, only 15 constitutions (in nine countries) ever included an explicit right to bear arms. They are Bolivia, Costa Rica, Colombia, Honduras, Nicaragua, Liberia, Guatemala, Mexico, and the US. All of those countries, excluding Mexico, the US, and Guatemala, have since rescinded the constitutional right to bear arms. So, America is the outlier here in terms of citizens’ rights to bear arms. Does it want to continue this, and put up with its horrible mass killings? Or does it want to consider repealing the Second Amendment, thereby allowing the average American citizen to breathe that much easier in the ‘land of the free’?
27
-
27
-
27
-
Of 54 African nations, as we speak, only 1 is classified as a ‘full democracy’: Mauritius. The rest are flawed democracies, hybrid democracies incorporating strongly authoritarian anti-democratic elements, or outright dictatorships. The truth is that too much of Africa is still mired in tribalism and too few States have made the requisite efforts to bring their countries into the sunny uplands of the least worst way of politically organising human affairs. The key here has to be education. Of the salient things functioning democracies need to embrace in order to have any chance of working, such as participation, free and fair elections, representation, accountability, transparency, responsiveness, pluralism, and the rule of law, far too few African nations tick even half of these boxes. Until they do, chiefly through education, Africa will remain benighted and doomed to anti-democratic trouble and strife.
27
-
27
-
27
-
Reform are just speaking to those who think immigration is out of control. When you get Labour and the Tories admitting immigration is out of control you can be sure immigration is out of control. The ‘gay’ thing always bemuses me. Never got the ‘hate what another human does when it comes to their sexual orientation’ memo. Makes utterly no sense. I tend to dislike people for their ideas, their beliefs, their opinions, their dress-sense, and not something over which they have utterly no say or control. It’s like dissing people with a different skin colour. Pointless. Not only pointless, but totally stupid and moronic, as no one chooses their skin colour, just as no one chooses their sexuality. But here’s the clincher for me: even if we did choose our skin colour and sexuality, it still wouldn’t bother me one iota that some random has a different skin colour or sexuality. The sooner we can move beyond this primitive nonsense as a species, the better. If it’s consenting adults, it’s quite simply no one else’s business what they get up to. To me, being homophobic is a bit like feeling resentful of someone digging Uranus because you’re not an astronomer! 🔭
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
This is really a question of priorities. People use the argument that France shouldn’t have given so much aid to Ukraine, but to date, that has been about $300 million - a drop in the ocean, when compared to the billions pensions cost per year. The other thing to factor in here is that France is 3rd in a list of OECD countries in terms of the proportion of its GDP pensions take up, at 14%. For comparison, the UK is 5%. Pushing back the retirement age by two years and extending the pay-in period would yield an additional 17.7 billion euros ($19.0 billion) in annual pension contributions, allowing the system to break even by 2027. Economically, Macron’s measure makes sense, but the way it has been done is awful and undemocratic, and the only reason he bypassed a vote was he knew it would be voted down. After Denmark, France is the second highest taxed country in Europe, but this notwithstanding, my own proposal would be to raise the tax threshold for the top band earners in France, and let the middle and lower income workers retire at 62 after a life of work. After all, the rich can retire at any point they want! The less rich don’t have the luxury of that choice.
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
The first thing that strikes anyone without skin in the game of this conflict, is how easy it is to solve. The essential point is a simple one. Two peoples of roughly equal size have a claim to the same land. The solution is, obviously, to create two states side by side. However, those who do have a tendentious, non-objective point of view, namely the rabid rabbis and the mad mullahs and the perfervid priests, have served to scupper any chances of solution, obvious to everyone else. But the exclusive claims to god-given authority, made by hysterical clerics on both sides and further stoked by Armageddon-minded wacko Christians who hope to bring on the Apocalypse tout de suite (preceded by the death or conversion of all Jews), have made the situation insufferable, literally and metaphorically, and put the whole of humanity in the position of hostage to a squabble that now features the threat of nuclear conflagration. The moral of this sad, sorry tale, full of sound and fury, is that organised religion has so much to answer for, we may be here until the seas run dry and rocks melt in the hot middle-eastern sun, before it can claim any kind of alibi.
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
As a lifelong agnostic, I have very little time for any organised religion. However, the thing that should be said is that I feel zero personal threat from any organised religion, bar one. If I were a public figure and publicly castigated Jesus, or Moses, or Krishna, or Buddha, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it’s very likely nothing would happen to me. If I publicly lambasted Muhammad, it’s quite likely there’d be a backlash and I’d be watching my back for the rest of my life. That’s the difference. Just ask Salman Rushdie. It seems Islam is so trigger-sensitive it can’t take honest criticism, when it’s just a bunch of manmade ideas like all the rest. Never let anyone tell you it’s ‘racist’ or a ‘hate-crime’ to criticise Islam. Islam is a belief-system held by people of multifarious races. Islam seems to think it’s entitled to a free pass when it comes to scrutiny. If Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Spaghettiism, etc. are subject to criticism, then Islam is too.
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
It’s long before time Europe collectively got some kind of grip on this migrant crisis. The vast majority of people in my orbit have no issue with controlled legal immigration. Where the issue arises is the suspicion many (the majority?) of these individuals are simply economic migrants. If these people are genuine asylum seekers and not just illegal economic migrants chancing their arm I have no problem accepting them as refugees into Europe, and I personally would have no problem with a barge full of genuine refugees in my backyard. However, more widely, Europe in toto needs to seriously address the migration issue. I’m pro legal immigration and obviously pro helping out genuine asylum seekers. But we have borders in this world, for better or worse, and surely every country, every country has the right to determine exactly who and who it does not admit. In the same way that every home-owner has a right to decide who to let into their house, Europe has this same right. As far as I can tell, most (the vast majority in fact) of the currently incoming migrants to Europe are simply economic migrants and unless they have specific skills they can contribute to a given country’s economy or unless they are bona fide genuine refugees fleeing life-threatening war/persecution, a strong message should be sent out that the doors will be locked when they arrive at Europe’s house. If liberals won’t enforce borders, fascists will.
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
It’s absolutely no accident this law is being introduced on a Muslim’s watch. As a lifelong agnostic, I have very little time for any organised religion. However, the thing that should be said is that I feel zero threat from any organised religion, bar one. If I were a public figure and publicly castigated Jesus, or Moses, or Krishna, or Buddha, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it’s very likely nothing would happen to me. If I publicly slagged off Muhammad, it’s quite likely there’d be a backlash and I’d be watching my back for the rest of my life. That’s the difference. Just ask Salman Rushdie or the Batley teacher who, btw, didn’t even criticise Muhammad; he just showed a damn picture! Imagine living in a society where certain people are so offended by a cartoon, they threaten death to the person who showed it! If certain people are so ‘offended’ by a cartoon, then it’s time to question the belief, not the cartoon. (Similarly, if certain other people are so ‘offended’ by someone suggesting they might not be biologically what they claim they are, it’s time to question the belief, not the questioner). It seems Islam is so trigger-sensitive it can’t take honest criticism, when it’s just a bunch of manmade ideas like all the rest. Never let anyone tell you it’s ‘racist’ or a ‘hate-crime’ to criticise Islam. Islam is a bunch of ideas. These ideas are held by people of multifarious races. No one is criticizing these peoples’ race, or age, or disability, or sexual orientation. That would be stupid. No one chooses these categories. However, it’s not necessarily stupid to criticise Islam. Why? People choose that. Equally, it’s not necessarily stupid to suggest that a person claiming to be a ‘woman’ is actually a biological man and vice-versa. Why? Because they are.
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
Aside from being a simple battle for national self-determination in the face of an autocratic aggressor (notwithstanding the very real intra-Ukrainian tensions), this whole war has been a very real question to every single one of us. It’s directly asking us to make a choice about whether we uphold basic non-negotiable liberal values such as individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), pluralistic liberal democracy, secularism, the rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion or, alternatively, we uphold illiberal values such as violation of individual rights (including violation of civil and human rights), illiberal autocracy, abuse of the law, economic and political servitude beholden to dictatorship, little to no freedom of speech, censorship of the press and media more widely, and lack of freedom to worship the Gods of your choice or no God at all. Given this choice I, for one, know which side I’m backing.
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
Frankly, no idea why anyone else should be butting in with what a woman does with her own body. It’s her choice. Simply no one else’s business. Those who bore on about the “rights of the unborn” seem to be overestimating human life. I’m willing to bet that if you ask 100 people randomly whether they would have wanted to be born (knowing what we do as humans), the vast majority of them would decline the offer. Invariably, it’s those holy rollers who adhere to primitive scriptures written by men thousands of years ago who cause all the trouble here. It’s no accident that abortion rights are such a hot topic in the US, a country with an alarmingly high belief in invisible daddies in the sky. Preventing legal access to abortion doesn’t stop abortions from happening, it just prevents safe abortions as women will seek dangerous underground methods if the legal option is denied them. Another thing that’s always confused me in this debate is how the pro-lifers in the US are oh so keen to “protect the life of the unborn” by denying legal access to abortion, but are quite free and easy with the lives of the born, and are all for any Tom, Dick or Dirty Harry buying a gun like they’re buying candy from a store and going out and shooting up a school every other week. Seems like there’s a contradiction there. Personally, my only issue with abortion is pain. Does the unborn foetus feel pain? On this basis, it should be done as early as possible in the gestation but the bottom line here is simple: it’s a woman’s right to choose what she does with her own body.
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
As a lifelong agnostic, I have very little time for any organised religion. However, the thing that should be said is that I feel zero threat from any organised religion, bar one. If I were a public figure and publicly castigated Jesus, or Moses, or Krishna, or Buddha, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it’s very likely nothing would happen to me. If I publicly slagged off Muhammad, it’s quite likely there’d be a backlash and I’d be watching my back for the rest of my life. That’s the difference. Just ask Salman Rushdie or the Batley teacher who, btw, didn’t even criticise Muhammad; he just showed a damn picture! Imagine living in a society where certain people are so offended by a cartoon, they threaten death to the person who showed it! If certain people are so ‘offended’ by a cartoon, then it’s time to question the belief, not the cartoon. It seems Islam is so trigger-sensitive it can’t take honest criticism, when it’s just a bunch of manmade ideas like all the rest. Never let anyone tell you it’s ‘racist’ or a ‘hate-crime’ to criticise Islam. Islam is a belief-system held by people of multifarious races. Islam seems to think it’s entitled to a free pass when it comes to scrutiny. If Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Spaghettiism, etc. are subject to criticism, then Islam is too.
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
Here’s the difference, as it stands: if I were a famous public figure and publicly castigated Jesus, or Krishna, or Buddha, or Moses, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, very likely nothing would happen to me. However, if I publicly lambasted Muhammad, I’d be very likely forced to watch my back for the rest of my life. Just ask Salman Rushdie (and this teacher who, btw, didn’t even criticise Muhammad; he just showed a damn picture!) Islam’s intolerance to criticism is anathema. As an agnostic, I have zero time for all organised religion, but the one I least trust currently is Islam, as it’s the only one that seems to demand most respect for its values, whilst simultaneously giving least respect for others’ values.
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
It’s absolutely no accident this law is being introduced on a Muslim’s watch. A big part of this is about not criticising Islam. As a lifelong agnostic, I have very little time for any organised religion. However, the thing that should be said is that I feel zero threat from any organised religion, bar one. If I were a public figure and publicly castigated Jesus, or Moses, or Krishna, or Buddha, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it’s very likely nothing would happen to me. If I publicly slagged off Muhammad, it’s quite likely there’d be a backlash and I’d be watching my back for the rest of my life. That’s the difference. Just ask Salman Rushdie or the Batley teacher who, btw, didn’t even criticise Muhammad; he just showed a damn picture! Imagine living in a society where certain people are so offended by a cartoon, they threaten death to the person who showed it! If certain people are so ‘offended’ by a cartoon, then it’s time to question the belief, not the cartoon. (Similarly, if certain other people are so ‘offended’ by someone suggesting they might not be biologically what they claim they are, it’s time to question the belief, not the questioner). It seems Islam is so trigger-sensitive it can’t take honest criticism, when it’s just a bunch of manmade ideas like all the rest. Never let anyone tell you it’s ‘racist’ or a ‘hate-crime’ to criticise Islam; it’s just some manmade ideas. These ideas are held by people of multifarious races. No one is criticizing these peoples’ race, or age, or disability, or sexual orientation. That would be stupid. No one chooses these categories. However, it’s not necessarily stupid to criticise Islam. Why? People choose that. Equally (as JK Rowling rightly points out), it’s not necessarily stupid to suggest that a person claiming to be a ‘woman’ is actually a biological man and vice-versa. Why? Because they are.
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
As a lifelong agnostic, I have very little time for any organised religion. However, the thing that should be said is that I feel zero threat from any organised religion, bar one. If I were a public figure and publicly castigated Jesus, or Moses, or Krishna, or Buddha, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it’s very likely nothing would happen to me. If I publicly slagged off Muhammad, it’s quite likely there’d be a backlash and I’d be watching my back for the rest of my life. That’s the difference. Just ask Salman Rushdie or the Batley teacher who, btw, didn’t even criticise Muhammad; he just showed a damn picture! Imagine living in a society where certain people are so offended by a cartoon, they threaten death to the person who showed it! It seems Islam is so trigger-sensitive it can’t take honest criticism, when it’s just a bunch of manmade ideas like all the rest.
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
No fan of the rotten Tories - can’t abide them, in fact - but this has more than a whiff of the good old witch-hunt. Rather than focusing on the ‘woke’ angle, however, and at the risk of sounding ageist, I’m willing to bet that those doing the complaining are 35 or under. Could be wrong, but as someone who’s completed the half century, what I’ve noticed these past couple of decades at least, is a kind of trigger-sensitivity in certain younger folk, such that they are ready to be offended by absolutely bloody anything. More than that, some of them seem to see it as their absolute duty to be mortally offended by A N Other! Raab no doubt has a robust ‘office manner’ (he’s a lawyer, after all), but certain folk of a certain age in our society just need to toughen up a little and not seemingly go out of their way to seek offence in every interaction.
23
-
Part of the issue that is too often overlooked in this debate, and part of the issue in all places with miscegenation and mixed ethnicities is the subtle difference between ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘multiracialism’/‘multiethnicism’. For societies to function optimally, you need folks pulling in more or less the same direction. With multiculturalism you tend to have this individual culture and that individual culture operating in their own little milieu within the greater milieu. Obviously, this isn’t optimal for social cohesion, if these smaller milieus are seen as more important than the overarching greater milieu. Multiracialism/ethnicism, however, allows for a Chinese, a French, a Nigerian, a Brazilian, an American, an Australian and a penguin to live in harmony, without the imposition of one’s cultural heritage on a host society, and this is particularly the case when one group doesn’t outweigh the others in terms of numbers. The other thing to note here is organised religion. We in the relatively secular West, largely completely mistrust organised religion. As an agnostic, I mistrust all organised religion for obvious historical reasons, and the only issue I have with immigration into the UK today is a certain cohort of Muslims who seem unwilling to fully integrate.
23
-
23
-
23
-
As ever, with these things, this is really a question of priorities. People use the argument that France shouldn’t have given so much aid to Ukraine, but to date, that has been about $300 million - a drop in the ocean, when compared to the billions pensions cost per year. The other thing to factor in here is that France is 3rd in a list of OECD countries in terms of the proportion of its GDP pensions take up, at 14%. For comparison, the UK is 5%. Pushing back the retirement age by two years and extending the pay-in period would yield an additional 17.7 billion euros ($19.0 billion) in annual pension contributions, allowing the system to break even by 2027. Economically, Macron’s measure makes sense, but the way it has been done is awful and undemocratic, and the only reason he bypassed a vote was he knew it would be voted down. After Denmark, France is the second highest taxed country in Europe, but my own proposal would be to raise the tax threshold for the top band earners in France, and let the middle and lower income workers retire at 62 after a life of work. After all, the rich can retire at any point they want! The less rich don’t have the luxury of that choice.
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
I’ve always found it interesting when Europeans who consider themselves ‘indigenous’ to this continent and more entitled thereby compared to other less-entitled, ‘non-indigenous’ folk, suddenly go silent when America is mentioned, or Australia, or New Zealand, or Mexico, or Peru, or Brazil; for by their logic no European who arrived post-1519 in Mexico, post-1524 in Peru, post-1500 in Brazil, post-1620 in America, and no European who arrived after 1606 in Australia and in New Zealand after 1642 has more entitlement than the ‘indigenous’ Aborigines, or those who were inhabiting these lands for thousands of years before Europeans aggressively pitched up. Not to mention all the African and Indian nonsense that went on as Europeans arrived and belligerently imposed their ways. No, somehow it’s ok that European settlers moved to these places and brutally subjugated (and in millions of cases, enslaved) those already settled there, but when non-Europeans arrive in Europe, to work, to seek a better life in most cases, somehow that’s just not on. Hypocrisy and double-standards doesn’t begin to cover it, and those who moan about immigration into Europe have not a leg to stand on when a few non-Europeans pitch up in their backyard to play.
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
Well, this wasn’t predictable. 2 militaries in Sudan vying for power: What could possibly go wrong? Of 54 African nations, as we speak, only 1 is classified as a ‘full democracy’: Mauritius. The rest are flawed democracies, hybrid democracies incorporating strongly authoritarian anti-democratic elements, or outright dictatorships. The truth is that too much of Africa is still mired in tribalism and too few States have made the requisite efforts to bring their countries into the sunny uplands of the least worst way of politically organising human affairs. The key here has to be education. Of the salient things functioning democracies need to embrace in order to have any chance of working, such as participation, free and fair elections, representation, accountability, transparency, responsiveness, pluralism, and the rule of law, far too few African nations tick even half of these boxes. Until they do, chiefly through education, Africa will remain benighted and doomed to anti-democratic trouble and strife.
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
Why does America consistently have a homicide rate 4x that of comparable countries? Why do so many other developed nations not have America’s baleful gun culture? Germany, the UK, Japan, for example, don’t seem to have this terrible issue with gun crime, and yet there is relative peace in terms of general society, and certainly mass killings are rare. America needs to seriously look at its Second Amendment. There are only three countries that have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms: Mexico, Guatemala, and the United States. Although Mexico and Guatemala both have a constitutional right to bear arms, the US is in a league of its own simply because it is the only country without restrictions on gun ownership in its constitution. After the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, it inspired other countries around the world to provide their citizens with the right to own guns. However, only 15 constitutions (in nine countries) ever included an explicit right to bear arms. They are Bolivia, Costa Rica, Colombia, Honduras, Nicaragua, Liberia, Guatemala, Mexico, and the US. All of those countries, excluding Mexico, the US, and Guatemala, have since rescinded the constitutional right to bear arms. So, America is the outlier here in terms of citizens’ rights to bear arms. Does it want to continue this, and put up with its horrible mass killings? Or does it want to consider repealing the Second Amendment, thereby allowing the average American citizen to breathe that much easier in the ‘land of the free’?
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
In this debate, sex and gender are consistently conflated. If you’re male you have the xy chromosome and if you’re female you have the xx. Most, but not all, people fall into one of these two biologically-determined sex categories. Hermaphroditism is rare but should be noted here. As is xx male syndrome. Gender, however, is a socially-determined free for all, and is essentially down to feelings: you can be biologically male and identify as (or feel) ‘female’ and vice-versa, but you cannot actually biologically flip from one to the other. These latter cases of self-identified gender I have no issue with and as long as you’re harming no one, then identify however you want. I don’t care. For me, where the issue arises is specifically when biological males seek to be accepted into biological female categories, and thereby inveigle themselves into female spaces, whether physical public spaces or spaces solely the preserve of females, such as female sports categories. This latter, for me, is as unfair as allowing an adult football team to play in an under-14s league. If a biological male person wants to identify as ‘female’, I personally have no problem with it; and if a biological female wants me to recognise them as ‘male’, again, I have no personal issue with this. It’s a free country after all and live and let live. It's when these same people (particularly trans women) claim patently unfair rights, as in Scotland recently, to invade the spaces that should be solely the preserve of biological females that my hackles are raised.
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
Imo Musk wasn’t far wrong with the UK ‘heading for Civil war’ comment if it doesn’t get a grip on Muslim immigration and the political class will ignore this one at their peril. The key issue for many European people isn’t immigration per se (most people I know have no particular problem with strictly controlled legal immigration); it’s mass Islamic immigration that is the problem for many, including many left of centre voters. Just a couple of weeks ago, we had an Islamic dude wanting a Scottish island all to himself and his followers as an ‘Islamic caliphate’. Seriously, I’m old enough to remember when stories like this would’ve been an April Fool’s joke! As a secular agnostic, I’m constantly amazed at just how carefree western, secular, liberal democracies are when it comes to importing an ideology diametrically opposed to liberal democracy. Islam is political (‘Islam is politics or it is nothing.’ ~ Ayatollah Khomeini). It wants control of the reins. At the current rate, the UK is projected to be 17% Islamic in 2 decades. Sweden, astonishingly, is projected to be 30% Islamic by 2050. A full third of Swedes will be Muslims. With numbers like that, Europe can expect some interesting times ahead.
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
I’ve always found it interesting when Europeans who consider themselves ‘indigenous’ to this continent and more entitled thereby compared to other less-entitled, ‘non-indigenous’ folk, suddenly go silent when America is mentioned, or Australia, or New Zealand, or Mexico, or Peru, or Brazil; for by their logic no European who arrived post 1519 in Mexico, post 1524 in Peru, post 1500 in Brazil, post 1620 in America, and no European who arrived after 1606 in Australia and in New Zealand after 1642 has more entitlement than the ‘indigenous’ Aborigines. Not to mention all the African and Indian nonsense that went on as Europeans arrived and aggressively imposed their ways. No, somehow it’s ok that European settlers moved to these places and brutally subjugated (and in millions of cases, enslaved) those already settled there, but when non-Europeans arrive in Europe, to work, to seek a better life in most cases, somehow that’s just not on. Hypocrisy and double-standards doesn’t begin to cover it, and those who moan about immigration into Europe have not a leg to stand on when a few non-Europeans pitch up in their backyard to play. One could almost call it a little bit of ‘geopolitical karma’. 🤓
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
Why do so many other developed nations not have America’s baleful gun culture? Germany, the UK, Japan, for example, don’t seem to have this terrible issue with gun crime, and yet there is relative peace in terms of general society, and certainly mass killings are rare. America needs to seriously look at its Second Amendment. There are only three countries that have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms: Mexico, Guatemala, and the United States. Although Mexico and Guatemala both have a constitutional right to bear arms, the US is in a league of its own simply because it is the only country without restrictions on gun ownership in its constitution. After the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, it inspired other countries around the world to provide their citizens with the right to own guns. However, only 15 constitutions (in nine countries) ever included an explicit right to bear arms. They are Bolivia, Costa Rica, Colombia, Honduras, Nicaragua, Liberia, Guatemala, Mexico, and the US. All of those countries, excluding Mexico, the US, and Guatemala, have since rescinded the constitutional right to bear arms. So, America is the outlier here in terms of citizens’ rights to bear arms. Does it want to continue this, and put up with its horrible mass killings? Or does it want to consider repealing the Second Amendment, thereby allowing the average American citizen to breathe that much easier in the ‘land of the free’?
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
I’ve always found it interesting when Europeans who consider themselves ‘indigenous’ to this continent and more entitled thereby compared to other less-entitled, ‘non-indigenous’ folk, suddenly go silent when America is mentioned, or Australia, or New Zealand, or Mexico, or Peru, or Brazil; for by their logic no European who arrived post 1519 in Mexico, post 1524 in Peru, post 1500 in Brazil, post 1620 in America, and no European who arrived after 1606 in Australia and in New Zealand after 1642 has more entitlement than the ‘indigenous’ Aborigines. Not to mention all the African and Indian nonsense that went on as Europeans arrived and aggressively imposed their ways. No, somehow it’s ok that European settlers moved to these places and brutally subjugated (and in millions of cases, enslaved) those already settled there, but when non-Europeans arrive in Europe, to work, to seek a better life in most cases, somehow that’s just not on. Hypocrisy and double-standards doesn’t begin to cover it, and Le Pen and her ilk have not a leg to stand on when a few non-Europeans pitch up in their backyard to play.
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
@skullsaintdead Great points, well made. You’re right about Christianity in certain places (most obviously, the US). I overlooked that. However, the thing with Islam is that I fear its aggressiveness in the sense that if I don’t toe its line, there will be consequences. Quite possibly violent consequences. As I outlined in my OP. Even a damn caricature and certain Muslims are up in arms! It’s ridiculous, notwithstanding I’m aware that representing Muhammad pictorially is forbidden. I don’t care if it’s forbidden. I’m not a Muslim and if I wanted to show a picture of Muhammad, Islam should be able to cope with this. It just comes across as immature and so unsure of itself, in this regard. The literalist thing is deeply off-putting, too. That’s a big difference with much of modern-day Christianity: Muslims, by and large, take their ‘holy’ text quite literally. At least a good bulk of contemporary Christians have ditched the literalist thing when it comes to the Bible. (Leaving aside the US Bible Belt cranks!)
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
What’s happening in France can be correlated with Brexit and Trump. Instead of looking at this in terms of traditional left versus right, David Goodheart’s thesis of two distinct ‘tribes’, the ‘anywheres’ and the ‘somewheres’, with irreconcilable differences may be applicable here. Brexiteers, Trumpeteers and Le Penistas fall into the ‘somewhere’ camp and they may be seen as rooted in geographical identity - the Scottish farmer; working-class Geordie; Cornish housewife - who find rapid changes to the modern world unsettling; are socially conservative; are likely to be older and less well educated and less mobile. This manifests in supporting anti-mass-immigration policies; strong support for the Armed Forces; suspicion of the EU, and more widely ‘other’ cultures; strong support for strict law enforcement (including the death penalty) and a general authoritarianism, with the notion that the primary job of Britain’s leaders is to put British interests first. ‘Anywheres’ are footloose; often urban; university educated; socially liberal; egalitarian and meritocratic in their attitudes to race, sexuality, and gender; are able to migrate and integrate comfortably into other places; are often strong supporters of the EU and globalisation; are lighter in their attachments to larger group identities, including national ones, valuing autonomy and self-realisation before stability, community and tradition. What’s happening in France may be seen as a battle between the Anywheres and the Somewheres just as Brexit and Trump’s election may be seen in these terms. Melenchon’s core base appears to be a curious mixture of the two: ‘Somewheres’ and ‘Anywheres’; traditional left-leaning working-class folk rooted in their specific communities, and a more metropolitan strain, found in the big cities, and while left-leaning, also more likely to fall into the ‘Anywhere’ tribe, principally due to a higher-level of education.
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
Most crop circles are unimpressive nothings, which could (and probably were) be made by a group of pranksters. What gets me about this phenomenon are the intricate, amazing-looking ones that, if you asked me, couldn’t be made by humans in a week, let alone a night. My only doubt about the really impressive ones is: were they were genuinely made ‘overnight’. The one I always cite is the 2001 Milk 🥛 Hill circle. Now, if you tell me that a bunch of, say, 25 people have a week to create this masterpiece (for that’s what it is), then I might believe you, but even then with difficulty, given it’s scale and precision. If you tell me that on a Monday this thing wasn’t there, and by a Tuesday morning it was … then, there is either an army of very skilful, speedy artists out there, or something very strange is going on. It all hinges on whether these things are created overnight, something which cannot be verified, alas.
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
I like the reasoned tone of this guy. Like him, I’m not against a little immigration/diversity but, for example, when the UK net imports 600,000+ year on year (that’s more than 1% of the total population - it should really be about 10x less than this), then integration will be inevitably be tricky and pressure on services will be immense. It does feel like much of this is planned and the only way to stop it is to vote for an anti mass immigration party in places like the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Spain. Btw, that doesn’t necessarily mean a right-wing, fascist party (although, I detect an increasing clamour in some quarters for this); it just means a party that treats mass immigration in Western Europe as a number 1 priority and pledges to drastically reduce it. (Edit: 11:40 this lady who was pissed off at the filming thing is a small example of the macrocosm. Imagine just walking down a Paris street in 2024, where everyone has a camera phone and being told you can’t film. That’s cultural clash, right there.)
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
What’s happening in France can be correlated with Brexit and Trump. Instead of looking at this in terms of traditional left versus right, David Goodheart’s thesis of two distinct ‘tribes’, the ‘anywheres’ and the ‘somewheres’, with irreconcilable differences may be applicable here. Brexiteers, Trumpeteers and Le Penistas fall into the ‘somewhere’ camp and they may be seen as rooted in geographical identity - the Scottish farmer; working-class Geordie; Cornish housewife - who find rapid changes to the modern world unsettling; are socially conservative; are likely to be older and less well educated and less mobile. This manifests in supporting anti-mass-immigration policies; strong support for the Armed Forces; suspicion of the EU, and more widely ‘other’ cultures; strong support for strict law enforcement (including the death penalty) and a general authoritarianism, with the notion that the primary job of Britain’s leaders is to put British interests first. ‘Anywheres’ are footloose; often urban; university educated; socially liberal; egalitarian and meritocratic in their attitudes to race, sexuality, and gender; are able to migrate and integrate comfortably into other places; are often strong supporters of the EU and globalisation; are lighter in their attachments to larger group identities, including national ones, valuing autonomy and self-realisation before stability, community and tradition. What’s happening in France may be seen as a battle between the Anywheres and the Somewheres just as Brexit and Trump’s election may be seen in these terms.
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
Reform are just speaking to those who think immigration is out of control. When you get Labour and the Tories admitting immigration is out of control you can be sure immigration is out of control. The ‘gay’ thing always bemuses me. Never got the ‘hate what another human does when it comes to their sexual orientation’ memo. Makes utterly no sense. I tend to dislike people for their ideas, their beliefs, their opinions, their dress-sense, and not something over which they have utterly no say or control. It’s like dissing people with a different skin colour. Pointless. Not only pointless, but totally stupid and moronic, as no one chooses their skin colour, just as no one chooses their sexuality. But here’s the clincher for me: even if we did choose our skin colour and sexuality, it still wouldn’t bother me one iota that some random has a different skin colour or sexuality. The sooner we can move beyond this primitive nonsense as a species, the better. If it’s consenting adults, it’s quite simply no one else’s business what they get up to. To me, being homophobic is a bit like feeling resentful of someone digging Uranus because you’re not an astronomer! 🔭
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
Most Crop Circles are unimpressive nothings. What gets me about this phenomenon are the intricate, amazing-looking ones that, if you asked me, couldn’t be made by humans in a week, let alone a night. My only doubt about the really impressive ones is: were they were genuinely made ‘overnight’. The one I always cite is the 2001 Milk Hill circle. Now, if you tell me that a bunch of, say, 25 people have a week to create this masterpiece (for that’s what it is), then I might believe you, but even then with difficulty, given it’s scale and precision. If you tell me that on a Monday this thing wasn’t there, and by a Tuesday morning it was … then, there is either an army of very skilful, speedy artists out there, or something very strange is going on. It all hinges on whether these things are created overnight, something which cannot be verified, alas.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
2 militaries in Sudan vying for power. What could possibly go wrong? Of 54 African nations, as we speak, only 1 is classified as a ‘full democracy’: Mauritius. The rest are flawed democracies, hybrid democracies incorporating strongly authoritarian anti-democratic elements, or outright dictatorships. The truth is that too much of Africa is still mired in tribalism and too few States have made the requisite efforts to bring their countries into the sunny uplands of the least worst way of politically organising human affairs. The key here has to be education. Of the salient things functioning democracies need to embrace in order to have any chance of working, such as participation, free and fair elections, representation, accountability, transparency, responsiveness, pluralism, and the rule of law, far too few African nations tick even half of these boxes. Until they do, chiefly through education, Africa will remain benighted and doomed to anti-democratic trouble and strife.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
In this whole debate, I do wish people would stop talking about ‘climate change’. The climate has ‘changed’ for about 4 billion years when this 3rd rock from the sun emerged. The real issue is ‘global warming’, and how much humankind is complicit in this warming. That the planet is warming, and warming rather alarmingly rapidly, is indubitable. What’s not quite as indubitable is how much human activity is contributing to this. On balance, having looked at the evidence, I happen to think that humans are significantly contributing to global warming through fossil fuel burning. Given this, it makes utter sense to phase out fossil fuels. With this caveat: we must do it sensibly. They will be needed for some time to come as the transition to renewables is made. Who knows? Given that we are currently in an inter-glacial period, 500 years down the line when we have stopped using fossil fuels, the planet might start a rapid cooling trend leading to that ever-promised next Ice Age, and there might be a desperate clamour to start burning fossil fuels as quickly as possible!
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
Surely the key thing in this debate is the preference and rights of biological females as it's they who are potentially having their private spaces occupied. My guess (but it’s a guess based on extensive experience) would be that the vast majority of women (ie with cervix) wouldn’t want biological men in their private spaces, regardless of whether these men self-identify as “women”, and even if they have fully transitioned through physical/chemical castration. Put it this way: if I were a young mum taking her pre-teen child to the public swimming pool, would I want biological men (regardless of their trans status) sharing the changing rooms with me? Answer: no. This does not mean I’m “anti-trans”; it means I am pro-protecting safe spaces for biological women. I don’t care how you self-identify, just as long as your chosen identity doesn’t adversely affect my life. The analogy would be with organised religion: I’m agnostic. Believe in and worship what you want, but when this unfavourably impinges on my life, that’s when my hackles are raised. Religion should be a private matter and not pervade the public sphere and potentially adversely affect the lives of others. With trans people, they can do what they want within the law, express themselves how they want, call themselves what they want (and I will honour this), but if the majority of biological females don’t want them actually physically invading their private spaces, this wish should be honoured in practice.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
The first thing that strikes anyone without skin in the game of this conflict, is how easy it is to solve. The essential point is a simple one. Two peoples of roughly equal size have a claim to the same land. The solution is, obviously, to create two states side by side. However, those who do have a tendentious, non-objective point of view, namely the rabid rabbis and the mad mullahs and the pervervid priests, have served to scupper any chances of solution, obvious to everyone else. But the exclusive claims to god-given authority, made by hysterical clerics on both sides and further stoked by Armageddon-minded wacko Christians who hope to bring on the Apocalypse tout de suite (preceded by the death or conversion of all Jews), have made the situation insufferable, literally and metaphorically, and put the whole of humanity in the position of hostage to a squabble that now features the threat of nuclear conflagration. The moral of this sad, sorry tale, full of sound and fury, is that organised religion has so much to answer for, we may be here until the seas run dry and rocks melt in the hot middle-eastern sun, before it can claim any kind of alibi.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
This was America doing what America does since about 1776. At the time justified as being all about Iraq’s (non-existent) WMDs – or other purported goals, such as a desire to “spread democracy” or satisfy the oil or Israel lobbies; the real reason the Bush administration invaded Iraq was the same reason Truman dropped (unnecessarily) the atomic bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima: its demonstration effect. As with this latter barbaric, immoral atrocity, which was intended to send a post-WW2 message to the rest of the world (particularly the USSR) of “don’t mess with us, or else”, a quick and decisive victory in the heart of the Arab world would send a message to all countries, especially to recalcitrant regimes such as Syria, Libya, Iran, or North Korea, that American hegemony was here to stay.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
Surely the key thing in this debate is the preference and rights of biological females as it's they who are potentially having their private spaces occupied. My guess (but it’s a guess based on extensive experience) would be that the vast majority of women (ie with cervix) wouldn’t want biological men in their private spaces, regardless of whether these men self-identify as “women”, and even if they have fully transitioned through physical/chemical castration. Put it this way: if I were a young mum taking her pre-teen child to the public swimming pool, would I want biological men (regardless of their trans status) sharing the changing rooms with me? Answer: no. This does not mean I’m “anti-trans”; it means I am pro-protecting safe spaces for biological women. I don’t care how you self-identify, just as long as your chosen identity doesn’t adversely affect my life. The analogy would be with organised religion: I’m agnostic. Believe in and worship what you want, but when this unfavourably impinges on my life, that’s when my hackles are raised. Religion should be a private matter and not pervade the public sphere and potentially adversely affect the lives of others. With trans people, they can do what they want within the law, express themselves how they want, call themselves what they want (and I will honour this), but if the majority of biological females don’t want them actually physically invading their private spaces, this wish should be honoured in practice.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
The first thing that strikes anyone without skin in the game of this conflict, is how easy it is to solve. The essential point is a simple one. Two peoples of roughly equal size have a claim to the same land. The solution is, obviously, to create two states side by side. However, those who do have a tendentious, non-objective point of view, namely the rabid rabbis and the mad mullahs and the pervervid priests, have served to scupper any chances of solution, obvious to everyone else. But the exclusive claims to god-given authority, made by hysterical clerics on both sides and further stoked by Armageddon-minded wacko Christians who hope to bring on the Apocalypse tout de suite (preceded by the death or conversion of all Jews), have made the situation insufferable, literally and metaphorically, and put the whole of humanity in the position of hostage to a squabble that now features the threat of nuclear conflagration. The moral of this sad, sorry tale, full of sound and fury, is that organised religion has so much to answer for, we may be here until the seas run dry and rocks melt in the hot middle-eastern sun, before it can claim any kind of alibi.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
What’s happening in France can be correlated with Brexit and Trump. Instead of looking at this in terms of traditional left versus right, David Goodheart’s thesis of two distinct ‘tribes’, the ‘anywheres’ and the ‘somewheres’, with irreconcilable differences may be applicable here. Brexiteers, Trumpeteers and Le Penistas fall into the ‘somewhere’ camp and they may be seen as rooted in geographical identity - the Scottish farmer; working-class Geordie; Cornish housewife - who find rapid changes to the modern world unsettling; are socially conservative; are likely to be older and less well educated and less mobile. This manifests in supporting anti-mass-immigration policies; strong support for the Armed Forces; suspicion of the EU, and more widely ‘other’ cultures; strong support for strict law enforcement (including the death penalty) and a general authoritarianism, with the notion that the primary job of Britain’s leaders is to put British interests first. ‘Anywheres’ are footloose; often urban; university educated; socially liberal; egalitarian and meritocratic in their attitudes to race, sexuality, and gender; are able to migrate and integrate comfortably into other places; are often strong supporters of the EU and globalisation; are lighter in their attachments to larger group identities, including national ones, valuing autonomy and self-realisation before stability, community and tradition. What’s happening in France may be seen as a battle between the Anywheres and the Somewheres just as Brexit and Trump’s election may be seen in these terms.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
Given Rochdale is 36% Muslim, it was inevitable Galloway would win. The real issue here is Islam. Galloway is a friend to Islam. 3:24 Look at the people surrounding him here. If you’re not a friend to Islam, and you make it public, this can cause you trouble. If I were a famous public figure and publicly slagged off Jesus, or Yaweh, or Krishna, or Buddha, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it’s very likely nothing would happen to me. If I publicly castigated Muhammad, it’s quite likely there’d be a backlash and I’d be watching my back for the rest of my life. That’s the difference. Just ask Salman Rushdie. For some reason, certain prevalent strands of Islam can’t take honest criticism, when it’s just a bunch of manmade ideas like all the rest.
14
-
14
-
14
-
This is heartbreaking. Hope Odesa doesn’t get completely mashed. One of the tragedies of war, aside from the obvious human cost, is the loss of beautiful old cities and towns, which once gone, are never to return and are invariably replaced with horrendous modern architectural monstrosities (eg. Marseille, Le Havre, Hamburg, Portsmouth, Rotterdam, Berlin, etc.). Odesa is one of Ukraine’s gems. Please let the war gods spare it.
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
As ever with these things, this boils down to the human tribal mentality linked to race (Azerbaijani Azeris v Armenians), religion (Islam v Christianity) and language (Azerbaijani v Armenian). When I consider who I am, my ‘ethnicity’ is next to meaningless. An accident of birth. Equally, I care not a jot about anyone else’s ethnicity when I judge another human being. As an agnostic, I see all organised religion as manmade and, essentially, a human control mechanism along with a comforting fairy tale to shore up the human fear of death. Yes, my language is fairly key to my identity but, as someone who speaks 3 other languages, the only reason English takes precedence is another accident of birth. All told, ethnicity, organised religion and language have so much to answer for when it comes to human internecine conflict.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
I am frequently asked if I have visited Israel, whereas yet, it is simply assumed that I have. Well, I don’t travel. I really don’t, and if I did, I probably wouldn’t visit Israel. I remember how it was in 1948 when Israel was being established and all my Jewish friends were ecstatic. I was not. I said: what are we doing? We are establishing ourselves in a ghetto, in a small corner of a vast Muslim sea. The Muslims will never forget nor forgive, and Israel, as long as it exists, will be embattled. I was laughed at, but I was right. I can’t help but feel that the Jews didn’t really have the right to appropriate a territory only because 2000 years ago, people they consider their ancestors, were living there. History moves on and you can’t really turn it back. (Isaac Asimov)
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
The first thing that strikes anyone without skin in the game of this conflict, is how easy it is to solve. The essential point is a simple one. Two peoples of roughly equal size have a claim to the same land. The solution is, obviously, to create two states side by side. However, those who do have a tendentious, non-objective point of view, namely the rabid rabbis and the mad mullahs and the perfervid priests, have served to scupper any chances of solution, obvious to everyone else. But the exclusive claims to god-given authority, made by hysterical clerics on both sides and further stoked by Armageddon-minded wacko Christians who hope to bring on the Apocalypse tout de suite (preceded by the death or conversion of all Jews), have made the situation insufferable, literally and metaphorically, and put the whole of humanity in the position of hostage to a squabble that now features the threat of nuclear conflagration. The moral of this sad, sorry tale, full of sound and fury, is that organised religion has so much to answer for, we may be here until the seas run dry and rocks melt in the hot middle-eastern sun, before it can claim any kind of alibi.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
@rosita3528 In this debate, sex and gender are consistently conflated. If you’re male you have the xy chromosome and if you’re female you have the xx. Most, but not all, people fall into one of these two biologically-determined sex categories. Hermaphroditism is rare but should be noted here. As is xx male syndrome. Gender, however, is a socially-determined free for all: you can be biologically male and identify as female and vice-versa. These latter cases of gender I have no issue with and as long as you’re harming no one, then identify however you want. For me, where the issue arises is when biological males seek to be accepted into biological female categories, and thereby inveigle themselves into female spaces. This, for me, is as unfair as allowing an adult football team to play in an under-14s league. If a biological male person wants to identify as “female”, I have no problem with it; it’s when these same people claim patently unfair rights to invade the spaces that should be solely the preserve of biological females, that my hackles are raised. In terms of this drag queen in a school: I repeat, I have no real issue with it if all they are doing is reading a story or 2. If they are going beyond this, then I may question it.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
2 militaries in Sudan vying for power. What could possibly go wrong? Of 54 African nations, as we speak, only 1 is classified as a ‘full democracy’: Mauritius. The rest are flawed democracies, hybrid democracies incorporating strongly authoritarian anti-democratic elements, or outright dictatorships. The truth is that too much of Africa is still mired in tribalism and too few States have made the requisite efforts to bring their countries into the sunny uplands of the least worst way of politically organising human affairs. The key here has to be education. Of the salient things functioning democracies need to embrace in order to have any chance of working, such as participation, free and fair elections, representation, accountability, transparency, responsiveness, pluralism, and the rule of law, far too few African nations tick even half of these boxes. Until they do, chiefly through education, Africa will remain benighted and doomed to anti-democratic trouble and strife.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
This episode goes right to the heart of free-speech and its limits. Personally, as a free-speech absolutist, I have no issue with what Clarkson said but recognise law prohibits speech which, for example, incites murder, violence or terrorism; stirs up racial hatred, or hatred to other groups; causes fear of violence, alarm or distress, constitutes harassment or is defamatory or malicious. Clarkson’s words are clearly an incitement to violence on another, notwithstanding the jokey, blokey Clarkson tone cloaking those words. The fact Clarkson himself appears to think he crossed a line suggests he probably did. However, when all is said and done here, as usual George Orwell hit the nail on the head when he said: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
What’s interesting, and actually quite hopeful, about this whole farrago, notwithstanding the murky deceit and dodge betrayed by Johnson, is just how seriously the nation takes this. In other parts of the world, perhaps most other parts of the world, what Johnson has done would be seen as extraordinarily pettifogging in the grand scheme of things, but no, us Brits, with our sense of ‘fair play’, see this as actually very important, and for this reason: it’s about the larger principle, not the ostensible small-fry crime itself. And that gives me hope. Truth is that Johnson will be really judged at the ballot box.
12
-
12
-
What’s happening in France can be correlated with Brexit and Trump. Instead of looking at this in terms of traditional left versus right, David Goodheart’s thesis of two distinct ‘tribes’, the ‘anywheres’ and the ‘somewheres’, with irreconcilable differences may be applicable here. Brexiteers, Trumpeteers and Le Penistas fall into the ‘somewhere’ camp and they may be seen as rooted in geographical identity - the Scottish farmer; working-class Geordie; Cornish housewife - who find rapid changes to the modern world unsettling; are socially conservative; are likely to be older and less well educated and less mobile. This manifests in supporting anti-mass-immigration policies; strong support for the Armed Forces; suspicion of the EU, and more widely ‘other’ cultures; strong support for strict law enforcement (including the death penalty) and a general authoritarianism, with the notion that the primary job of Britain’s leaders is to put British interests first. ‘Anywheres’ are footloose; often urban; university educated; socially liberal; egalitarian and meritocratic in their attitudes to race, sexuality, and gender; are able to migrate and integrate comfortably into other places; are often strong supporters of the EU and globalisation; are lighter in their attachments to larger group identities, including national ones, valuing autonomy and self-realisation before stability, community and tradition. What’s happening in France may be seen as a battle between the Anywheres and the Somewheres just as Brexit and Trump’s election may be seen in these terms.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
What’s happening in France can be correlated with Brexit and Trump. Instead of looking at this in terms of traditional left versus right, David Goodheart’s thesis of two distinct ‘tribes’, the ‘Anywheres’ and the ‘Somewheres’, with irreconcilable differences may be applicable here. Brexiteers, Trumpeteers and Le Penistas fall into the ‘somewhere’ camp and they may be seen as rooted in geographical identity - the Scottish farmer; working-class Geordie; Cornish housewife - who find rapid changes to the modern world unsettling; are socially conservative; are likely to be older and less well educated and less mobile. This manifests in supporting anti-mass-immigration policies; strong support for the Armed Forces; suspicion of the EU, and more widely ‘other’ cultures; strong support for strict law enforcement (including the death penalty) and a general authoritarianism, with the notion that the primary job of Britain’s leaders is to put British interests first. ‘Anywheres’ are footloose; often urban; university educated; socially liberal; egalitarian and meritocratic in their attitudes to race, sexuality, and gender; are able to migrate and integrate comfortably into other places; are often strong supporters of the EU and globalisation; are lighter in their attachments to larger group identities, including national ones, valuing autonomy and self-realisation before stability, community and tradition. What’s happening in France may be seen as a battle between the Anywheres and the Somewheres just as Brexit and Trump’s election may be seen in these terms. Melenchon’s core base appears to be a curious mixture of the two: ‘Somewheres’ and ‘Anywheres’; traditional left-leaning working-class folk rooted in their specific communities, and a more metropolitan strain, found in the big cities, and while left-leaning, also more likely to fall into the ‘Anywhere’ tribe, principally due to a higher-level of education.
12
-
12
-
12
-
In this debate, sex and gender are consistently conflated. If you’re male you have the xy chromosome and if you’re female you have the xx. Most, but not all, people fall into one of these two biologically-determined sex categories. Hermaphroditism is rare but should be noted here. As is xx male syndrome. Gender, however, is a socially-determined free for all: you can be biologically male and identify as female and vice-versa. These latter cases of gender I have no issue with and as long as you’re harming no one, then identify however you want. For me, where the issue arises is when biological males seek to be accepted into biological female categories, and thereby inveigle themselves into female spaces. This, for me, is as unfair as allowing an adult football team to play in an under-14s league. If a biological male person wants to identify as “female”, I have no problem with it; it’s when these same people claim patently unfair rights to invade the spaces that should be solely the preserve of biological females, that my hackles are raised.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
Never got the hate what another human does when it comes to their sexual orientation memo. Makes utterly no sense. I tend to dislike people for their ideas, their beliefs, their opinions, their dress-sense, and not something over which they have utterly no say or control. It’s like dissing people with different skin colour. Pointless. Not only pointless, but totally stupid and moronic, as no one chooses their skin colour, just as no one chooses their sexuality. But here’s the clincher for me: even if we did choose our skin colour and sexuality, it still wouldn’t bother me one iota that some random has a different skin colour or sexuality. The sooner we can move beyond this primitive nonsense as a species, the better. To me, being homophobic is a bit like feeling resentful of someone digging Uranus because you’re not an astronomer! 🔭
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
Whenever the topic of climate change/global warming comes up, as someone neither particularly right nor particularly left politically, I despair at how tribalised and polarised this debate becomes with each camp ensconced in their respective corners, equally convinced that their case is watertight. As ever with these things (and the reason I’m a centrist in almost everything), the truth lies somewhere in the middle. One of the most reasoned and balanced paragraphs I have ever read about this topic is the following from Stephen Pinker:
If the emission of greenhouse gases continues, the Earth’s average temperature will rise to at least 1.5°C above the preindustrial level by the end of the 21st century, and perhaps to 4°C above that level or more. That will cause more frequent and more severe heat waves, more floods in wet regions, more droughts in dry regions, heavier storms, more severe hurricanes, lower crop yields in warm regions, the extinction of more species, the loss of coral reefs (because the oceans will be both warmer and more acidic), and an average rise in sea level of between 0.7 metres and 1.2 metres from both the melting of land ice and the expansion of seawater. (Sea level has already risen almost eight inches since 1870, and the rate of the rise appears to be accelerating.) Low-lying areas would be flooded, island nations would disappear beneath the waves, large stretches of farmland would no longer be arable, and millions of people would be displaced. The effects could get still worse in the 22nd century and beyond, and in theory could trigger upheavals such as a diversion of the Gulf Stream (which would turn Europe into Siberia) or a collapse of the Antarctic ice sheets. A rise of 2°C is considered the most that the world could reasonably adapt to, and a rise of 4°C, in the words of a 2012 World Bank report, “simply must not be allowed to occur.”
The planet is warming. Fact. Humans (according to the overwhelming scientific consensus) are the principal cause of this warming over the past couple of centuries through fossil fuel burning. Now, given this, and given the consequences eloquently outlined by Pinker, we have to collectively decide whether we want to continue on this trajectory or not. For me, given the data, and given the projected consequences contingent upon that data, it makes utter sense to phase out fossil fuels. With this caveat: we must do it sensibly. They will be needed for some time to come as the transition to renewables is made. Who knows? Given that we are currently in an inter-glacial period, 500 years down the line when we have stopped using fossil fuels, the planet might start a rapid cooling trend leading to that ever-promised next Ice Age, and there might be a desperate clamour to start burning fossil fuels as quickly as possible!
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
Here’s the difference, as it stands: if I were a famous public figure and publicly castigated Jesus, or Krishna, or Buddha, or Moses, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, very likely nothing would happen to me. However, if I publicly lambasted Muhammad, I’d be very likely forced to watch my back for the rest of my life. Just ask Salman Rushdie. Islam’s intolerance to criticism is anathema. As an agnostic, I have zero time for all organised religion, but the one I least trust currently is Islam, as it’s the only one that seems to demand most respect for its values, whilst simultaneously giving least respect for others’ values.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
In this debate, sex and gender are consistently conflated. If you’re male you have the xy chromosome and if you’re female you have the xx. Most, but not all, people fall into one of these two biologically-determined sex categories. Hermaphroditism is rare but should be noted here. As is xx male syndrome. Gender, however, is a socially-determined free for all: you can be biologically male and identify as female and vice-versa. These latter cases of self-identified gender I have no issue with and as long as you’re harming no one, then identify however you want. I don’t care. For me, where the issue arises is specifically when biological males seek to be accepted into biological female categories, and thereby inveigle themselves into female spaces, whether physical public spaces or spaces solely the preserve of females, such as female sports categories. This, for me, is as unfair as allowing an adult football team to play in an under-14s league. If a biological male person wants to identify as ‘female’, I personally have no problem with it; and if a biological female wants me to recognise them as ‘male’, again, I have no personal issue with this. It’s a free country after all and live and let live. It's when these same people (particularly trans women) claim patently unfair rights, as in Scotland recently, to invade the spaces that should be solely the preserve of biological females that my hackles are raised.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
3:00 Why is Britain so intent on creating little enclaves within the wider culture, as here, where this could be Pakistan or Bangladesh? Immigration per se isn’t necessarily the problem - most people I know have no particular problem with strictly controlled legal immigration - it’s Islamic immigration that is the problem for many, including many left of centre voters. As a secular agnostic, I’m constantly amazed at just how carefree western, secular, liberal democracies (particularly Britain, France and Germany) are when it comes to importing an ideology diametrically opposed to liberal democracy. Islam is political (‘Islam is politics or it is nothing.’ ~ Ayatollah Khomeini). It wants control of the reins. At the current rate, the UK is projected to be 17% Islamic in 2 decades. Sweden, astonishingly, is projected to be 30% Islamic. A full third of Swedes will be Muslims. With numbers like that, Europe can expect some interesting times ahead.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
Aside from being a simple battle for national self-determination in the face of an autocratic aggressor (notwithstanding the very real intra-Ukrainian tensions), this whole war has been a very real question to every single one of us. It’s directly asking us to make a choice about whether we uphold basic non-negotiable liberal values such as individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), pluralistic liberal democracy, secularism, the rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion or, alternatively, we uphold illiberal values such as violation of individual rights (including violation of civil and human rights), illiberal autocracy, abuse of the law, economic and political servitude beholden to dictatorship, little to no freedom of speech, censorship of the press and media more widely, and lack of freedom to worship the Gods of your choice or no God at all. Given this binary choice I, for one, know which side I’m backing.
11
-
11
-
In this whole wider immigration debate, there’s a subtle difference between ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘multiethnicism’. I have a problem with the former if it means each separate cultural group living their own lives parallel and separate from the broad main national culture, which I really only see in a cohort of Muslims. However, I have zero issue with multiethnicism. The colour of your skin bothers me not a jot; it’s only your ideas I care about, and the ideas tend to come into play with ‘multiculturalism’ and separate cultures living side by side. I tend to see only a lack of integration in a cohort of Muslims. I don’t see it in Chinese/Indians/Poles/ etc. Another thing I would say is that I have lived for long stretches in several places around the world and in every single one of these places only 3 things was asked of me: speak the language, pay taxes and don’t break the law. Now, obviously, I wasn’t living in these places permanently, but tbh, that’s all I really ask of those who come here. Most do these things and as they produce generations, these generations tend to meld with the whole. It’s only a rump of Muslims who want none of this.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
Whenever the topic of climate change/global warming comes up, as someone neither particularly right nor particularly left politically, I despair at how tribalised and polarised this debate becomes with each camp ensconced in their respective corners, equally convinced that their case is watertight. As ever with these things (and the reason I’m a centrist in almost everything), the truth lies somewhere in the middle. One of the most reasoned and balanced paragraphs I have ever read about this topic is the following from Stephen Pinker:
If the emission of greenhouse gases continues, the Earth’s average temperature will rise to at least 1.5°C above the preindustrial level by the end of the 21st century, and perhaps to 4°C above that level or more. That will cause more frequent and more severe heat waves, more floods in wet regions, more droughts in dry regions, heavier storms, more severe hurricanes, lower crop yields in warm regions, the extinction of more species, the loss of coral reefs (because the oceans will be both warmer and more acidic), and an average rise in sea level of between 0.7 metres and 1.2 metres from both the melting of land ice and the expansion of seawater. (Sea level has already risen almost eight inches since 1870, and the rate of the rise appears to be accelerating.) Low-lying areas would be flooded, island nations would disappear beneath the waves, large stretches of farmland would no longer be arable, and millions of people would be displaced. The effects could get still worse in the 22nd century and beyond, and in theory could trigger upheavals such as a diversion of the Gulf Stream (which would turn Europe into Siberia) or a collapse of the Antarctic ice sheets. A rise of 2°C is considered the most that the world could reasonably adapt to, and a rise of 4°C, in the words of a 2012 World Bank report, “simply must not be allowed to occur.”
The planet is warming. Fact. Humans (according to the overwhelming scientific consensus) are the principal cause of this warming over the past couple of centuries through fossil fuel burning. Now, given this, and given the consequences eloquently outlined by Pinker, we have to collectively decide whether we want to continue on this trajectory or not. For me, given the data, and given the projected consequences contingent upon that data, it makes utter sense to phase out fossil fuels. With this caveat: we must do it sensibly. They will be needed for some time to come as the transition to renewables is made. Who knows? Given that we are currently in an interglacial period, 500 years down the line when we have stopped using fossil fuels, the planet might start a rapid cooling trend leading to that ever-promised next Ice Age, and there might be a desperate clamour to start burning fossil fuels as quickly as possible!
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
What’s happening in France can be correlated with Brexit and Trump. Instead of looking at this in terms of traditional left versus right, David Goodheart’s thesis of two distinct ‘tribes’, the ‘anywheres’ and the ‘somewheres’, with irreconcilable differences may be applicable here. Brexiteers, Trumpeteers and Le Penistas fall into the ‘somewhere’ camp and they may be seen as rooted in geographical identity - the Scottish farmer; working-class Geordie; Cornish housewife - who find rapid changes to the modern world unsettling; are socially conservative; are likely to be older and less well educated and less mobile. This manifests in supporting anti-mass-immigration policies; strong support for the Armed Forces; suspicion of the EU, and more widely ‘other’ cultures; strong support for strict law enforcement (including the death penalty) and a general authoritarianism, with the notion that the primary job of Britain’s leaders is to put British interests first. ‘Anywheres’ are footloose; often urban; university educated; socially liberal; egalitarian and meritocratic in their attitudes to race, sexuality, and gender; are able to migrate and integrate comfortably into other places; are often strong supporters of the EU and globalisation; are lighter in their attachments to larger group identities, including national ones, valuing autonomy and self-realisation before stability, community and tradition. What’s happening in France may be seen as a battle between the Anywheres and the Somewheres just as Brexit and Trump’s election may be seen in these terms.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
More trouble and strife down Africa way. Of 54 African nations, as we speak, only 1 is classified as a ‘full democracy’: Mauritius. The rest are flawed democracies, hybrid democracies incorporating strongly authoritarian anti-democratic elements, or outright dictatorships. The truth is that too much of Africa is still mired in tribalism and too few States have made the requisite efforts to bring their countries into the sunny uplands of the least worst way of politically organising human affairs. The key here has to be education. Of the salient things functioning democracies need to embrace in order to have any chance of working, such as participation, free and fair elections, representation, accountability, transparency, responsiveness, pluralism, and the rule of law, far too few African nations tick even half of these boxes. Until they do, chiefly through education, Africa will remain benighted and doomed to anti-democratic trouble and strife.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
Ah, fair Nimes. As soon as I stepped out the station up that gorgeous wee alley of tumbling water and trees between Ave. Feucheres, leading up to Les Arenes, I knew I was in a spot to savour. It was July. The cicadas were providing that quintessential Midi soundtrack with their crazy buzzing, the buildings has that faded grandeur/shabby-chic look that France does like no other country on Earth (save Italy), and the general vibe was one of satisfied torpor in the summer sun. Sure, there’s not much to the place. To call it France’s Rome is to grossly insult the scale and richness of the Eternal City, but what there is, including, of course, the superbly preserved aforementioned Les Arenes and Maison Carree, is worth a day of anyone’s life.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
We’re basically already there as there is a large lag effect in the climate and global warming situation. However, in this debate I do wish people would stop talking about ‘climate change’. The climate has been ‘changing’ for about 4 billion years when this 3rd rock from the sun emerged. The real issue is ‘global warming’, and how much humankind is complicit in this warming. That the planet is warming, and warming rather alarmingly rapidly, is indubitable. What’s not quite as indubitable is how much human activity is contributing to this. On balance, having looked at the evidence, I happen to think that humans are significantly contributing to global warming through fossil fuel burning. Given this, it makes utter sense to phase out fossil fuels. With this caveat: we must do it sensibly. They will be needed for some time to come as the transition to renewables is made. Who knows? Given that we are currently in an inter-glacial period, 500 years down the line when we have stopped using fossil fuels, the planet might start a rapid cooling trend leading to that ever-promised next Ice Age, and there might be a desperate clamour to start burning fossil fuels as quickly as possible!
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
As ever, with these things, this is really a question of priorities. People use the argument that France shouldn’t have given so much aid to Ukraine, but to date, that has been about $300 million - a drop in the ocean, when compared to the billions pensions cost per year. The other thing to factor in here is that France is 3rd in a list of OECD countries in terms of the proportion of its GDP pensions take up, at 14%. For comparison, the UK is 5%. Pushing back the retirement age by two years and extending the pay-in period would yield an additional 17.7 billion euros ($19.0 billion) in annual pension contributions, allowing the system to break even by 2027. Economically, Macron’s measure makes sense, but the way it has been done is awful and undemocratic, and the only reason he bypassed a vote was he knew it would be voted down. After Denmark, France is the second highest taxed country in Europe, but my own proposal would be to raise the tax threshold for the top band earners in France, and let the middle and lower income workers retire at 62 after a life of work. After all, the rich can retire at any point they want! The less rich don’t have the luxury of that choice. As Thomas Jefferson said: “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@stevenrakhmanchik3126 Well, that’s just a flat out lie. In Odesa, the largest ethnic groups are: • Ukrainians 622,000(61.6%); • Russians 292,000 (29.0%); • Bulgarians 13,300 (1.3%); • Jews 12,400 (1.2%); • Moldovans 7,600 (0.7%); • Byelorussians 6,400 (0.6%); • Armenians 4,400 (0.4%); • Roma 4,000 (0,4%) • Poles 2.100 (0.2%).
Nice try, though.👍
10
-
I’ve always found it interesting when Europeans who consider themselves ‘indigenous’ to this continent and more entitled thereby compared to other less-entitled, ‘non-indigenous’ folk, suddenly go silent when America is mentioned, or Australia, or New Zealand, or Mexico, or Peru, or Brazil; for by their logic no European who arrived post 1519 in Mexico, post 1524 in Peru, post 1500 in Brazil, post 1620 in America, and no European who arrived after 1606 in Australia and in New Zealand after 1642 has more entitlement than the ‘indigenous’ Aborigines. Not to mention all the African and Indian nonsense that went on as Europeans arrived and aggressively imposed their ways. No, somehow it’s ok that European settlers moved to these places and brutally subjugated (and in millions of cases, enslaved) those already settled there, but when non-Europeans arrive in Europe, somehow that’s just not on. Hypocrisy and double-standards doesn’t begin to cover it, and Europeans have not a leg to stand on when a few non-Europeans pitch up in their backyard (in this case their Australian backyard) to play.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
Personally, I’m just generally meh about Schofield (he comes across as smug, entitled and arrogant), but it seems his only real “crime” here is sharing the genes of a paedo. No particular issue with the younger guy thing if he was legal and it was consensual. Those who bang on about his “betrayal” of his wife, always seem to totally ignore the fact that he and his wife are best of friends to this day and his daughters appear to have no issue. From Willoughby’s point of view, I suppose I can kind of get it: in a prime-time telly partnership with the brother of a convicted kiddy-fiddler isn’t the best of looks for a media person, and I can imagine her, perfectly understandably, wanting to professionally (perhaps personally, too) distance herself from him. That said, the bottom line for me is that Schofield himself has essentially committed no crime and the witch-hunt surrounding him baffles me somewhat.
10
-
In this debate, sex and gender are consistently conflated. If you’re male you have the xy chromosome and if you’re female you have the xx. Most, but not all, people fall into one of these two biologically-determined categories. Hermaphroditism is rare but should be noted here. As is xx male syndrome. Gender, however, is a free for all: you can be biologically male and identify as female and vice versa. These latter cases of gender I have no issue with; if you’re harming no one, then identify however you want. Where the issue for me arises, is with, for example, the recent case of the biological male cyclist seeking to be accepted as female and thereby be admitted into female cycling competitions. This, for me, is as unfair as allowing an adult football team to play in an under-14s league. If this person wants to identify as female, I have no problem with it; it’s when they claim patently unfair rights to compete in a category to which they are clearly not biologically assigned. That’s all.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
In this debate, sex and gender are consistently conflated. If you’re male you have the xy chromosome and if you’re female you have the xx. Most, but not all, people fall into one of these two biologically-determined sex categories. Hermaphroditism is rare but should be noted here. As is xx male syndrome. Gender , however, is a socially-determined free for all: you can be biologically male and identify as female and vice-versa. These latter cases of self-identified gender I have no issue with and as long as you’re harming no one, then identify however you want. I don’t care. For me, where the issue arises is specifically when biological males seek to be accepted into biological female categories, and thereby inveigle themselves into female spaces, whether physical public spaces or spaces solely the preserve of females, such as female sports categories. This, for me, is as unfair as allowing an adult football team to play in an under-14s league. If a biological male person wants to identify as ‘female’, I personally have no problem with it; and if a biological female wants me to recognise them as ‘male’, again, I have no personal issue with this. It’s a free country after all and live and let live. It's when these same people (particularly trans women) claim patently unfair rights, as in Scotland recently, to invade the spaces that should be solely the preserve of biological females that my hackles are raised.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
Amongst other things, Farage is back to appeal to those who have concerns about mass immigration. However, the issue for many people isn’t immigration per se (most people I know have no particular problem with strictly controlled legal immigration); it’s Islamic immigration that is the problem for many, including many left of centre voters. As a secular agnostic, I’m constantly amazed at just how carefree western, secular, liberal democracies are when it comes to importing an ideology diametrically opposed to liberal democracy. Islam is political (‘Islam is politics or it is nothing.’ ~ Ayatollah Khomeini). It wants control of the reins. At the current rate, the UK is projected to be 17% Islamic in 2 decades. Sweden, astonishingly, is projected to be 30% Islamic. A full third of Swedes will be Muslims. With numbers like that, Europe can expect some interesting times ahead.
10
-
10
-
10
-
In this whole wider immigration debate, there’s a subtle difference between ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘multiethnicism’. I have a problem with the former if it means each separate cultural group living their own lives parallel and separate from the broad main national culture, which I really only see in a cohort of Muslims. However, I have zero issue with multiethnicism. The colour of your skin bothers me not a jot; it’s only your ideas I care about, and the ideas tend to come into play with ‘multiculturalism’ and separate cultures living side by side. I tend to see only a lack of integration in a cohort of Muslims. I don’t see it in Chinese/Indians/Poles/ etc. Another thing I would say is that I have lived for long stretches in several places around the world and in every single one of these places only 3 things was asked of me: speak the language, pay taxes and don’t break the law. Now, obviously, I wasn’t living in these places permanently, but tbh, that’s all I really ask of those who come here. Most do these things and as they produce generations, these generations tend to meld with the whole. It’s only a rump of Muslims who want none of this.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
Poland: 1,200,000
Hungary:192,000
Romania: 143,000
Slovakia: 140,000
Czech Republic: 100,000
Moldova: 83,000
Germany: 30,000
France: 3,000
Ireland: 2,200
UK: 300
Shame on Britain!
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
I’ve always found it interesting when Europeans who consider themselves ‘indigenous’ to this continent and more entitled thereby compared to other less-entitled, ‘non-indigenous’ folk, suddenly go silent when America is mentioned, or Australia, or New Zealand, or Mexico, or Peru, or Brazil; for by their logic no European who arrived post-1519 in Mexico, post-1524 in Peru, post-1500 in Brazil, post-1620 in America, and no European who arrived after 1606 in Australia and in New Zealand after 1642 has more entitlement than the ‘indigenous’ Aborigines, or those who were inhabiting these lands for thousands of years before Europeans aggressively pitched up. Not to mention all the African and Indian nonsense that went on as Europeans arrived and belligerently imposed their ways. No, somehow it’s ok that European settlers moved to these places and brutally subjugated (and in millions of cases, enslaved) those already settled there, but when non-Europeans arrive in Europe, to work, to seek a better life in most cases, somehow that’s just not on. Hypocrisy and double-standards doesn’t begin to cover it, and those who moan about immigration into Europe have not a leg to stand on when a few non-Europeans pitch up in their backyard to play.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@EricBlair-jg2ux Where did I say that the citizens of a country shouldn’t have a say as to who comes to live there? As a matter of fact, I happen to think that there should be a people’s referendum on the issue, in any democracy worthy of that name. My main point here was the baloney ‘indigenous’ one that so many unthinking morons bandy about as a reason for them being more ‘entitled’ than those they perceive as ‘non-indigenous’ ethnically. That’s all. If you’re a citizen of any country, you thereby have just as much of a say as the next citizen, regardless of the genetic make-up of the citizens involved, and if you gainsay this position you just smack of an ethnic racist of quite the most sinister kind, privileging your own accident of birth race/ethnicity based on nothing but your whim. History repeatedly shows that when those who think like that get any untrammelled power, it tends to turn out badly, and not necessarily for them. There now; that wasn’t too difficult, was it? Word to the wise: if you’re going to plump for a moniker like ‘Eric Blair 1948’, you really should have better stuff, as you’re setting yourself up for a mighty fall when you hide behind one of the greatest writers and thinkers of the 20th Century. You might wanna think about this going forward. You’re welcome.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Really? Are we still doing this sh*t in 2023? 🤷♂️ Never got the hate what another human is when it comes to their sexual orientation memo. Makes utterly no sense. I tend to dislike people for their ideas, their beliefs, their opinions, their dress-sense, and not something over which they have utterly no say or control. It’s like dissing people with a different skin colour. Pointless. Not only pointless, but totally stupid and moronic, as no one chooses their skin colour, just as no one chooses their sexuality. But here’s the clincher for me: even if we did choose our skin colour and sexuality, it still wouldn’t bother me one iota that some random has a different skin colour or sexuality. No one (state or individual) has any business getting involved with what consenting adults are privately doing. The sooner we can move beyond this primitive nonsense as a species, the better. To me, being homophobic is a bit like feeling resentful of someone digging Uranus because you’re not an astronomer! 🔭
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@Alias_Ex My point being, if Putin hadn’t invaded in 2014 and 2022 there might have been no big issue. Inter-ethnic tensions, perhaps, but Ukraine might have made it as a whole Ukraine, as it were, with all these eastern bits with the ethnic Russians. After all, Belgium exists with Flemings and Walloons, Switzerland has 4 official languages, Spain also rolls with 4 official languages, so why the fuck can’t east Ukraine coexist as a nation with west Ukraine? Why should this be so difficult? I understand the militant pro-Russian separatists, but I get the feeling, having read a bit about this that most non-radical east Ukrainian pro-Russians were just getting on with their lives happily under the umbrella of Ukraine prior to 2014. Putin is a big part of this, I feel. One man driving the whole separation of Ukraine into two ethnic camps for his own ends of winning back Crimea, Donbas, and ultimately the rest of Ukraine for his mad mother Russia project.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
According to the Human Freedom Index, which measures personal and economic freedom in 165 countries, representing 98.1% of the global population, using 82 indicators across 12 categories, Iran comes 5th last, with only Myanmar, Sudan, Yemen and Syria scoring worse. In 2021, Switzerland topped the Index at 9.01, followed by New Zealand and Denmark; the global average score was 7.12. Iran scored 4.03. Regions like North America and Western Europe score highest in freedom, whereas the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia rank lowest, with women's freedoms notably restricted. Venezuela, Egypt, Somalia, Saudi Arabia and Iraq made up the top 10 of those countries with least freedom. Aside from outliers like Myanmar and Venezuela, 8 of these countries have one thing in common: Islam.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Last time I checked, well over a million Hungarians have immigrated into the USA. Close to half a million into Canada. Hundreds of thousands into other European countries. Hundreds of thousands into Israel. And so on. I’ve always found it interesting when Europeans who consider themselves ‘indigenous’ to this continent and more entitled thereby compared to other less-entitled, ‘non-indigenous’ folk, suddenly go silent when America is mentioned, or Australia, or New Zealand, or Mexico, or Peru, or Brazil; for by their logic no European who arrived post-1519 in Mexico, post-1524 in Peru, post-1500 in Brazil, post-1620 in America, and no European who arrived after 1606 in Australia and in New Zealand after 1642 has more entitlement than the ‘indigenous’ Aborigines, or the peoples already inhabiting these places for tens of thousands of years. Not to mention all the African and Indian nonsense that went on as Europeans arrived and aggressively imposed their ways. No, somehow it’s ok that European settlers moved to these places and brutally subjugated (and in millions of cases, enslaved) those already settled there, but when non-Europeans arrive in Europe, somehow that’s just not on. Hypocrisy and double-standards doesn’t begin to cover it, and Europeans have not a leg to stand on when a few non-Europeans pitch up in their backyard to play.
9
-
9
-
9
-
Why do so many other developed nations not have America’s baleful gun culture? Germany, the UK, Japan, for example, don’t seem to have this terrible issue with gun crime, and yet there is relative peace in terms of general society, and certainly mass killings are rare. America needs to seriously look at its 2nd Amendment. There are only three countries that have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms: Mexico, Guatemala, and the United States. Although Mexico and Guatemala both have a constitutional right to bear arms, the US is in a league of its own simply because it is the only country without restrictions on gun ownership in its constitution. After the 2nd Amendment was adopted in 1791 (and even then it was only militia set-ups allowed to own a gun; not the individual private citizen), it inspired other countries around the world to provide their citizens with the right to own guns. However, only 15 constitutions (in nine countries) ever included an explicit right to bear arms. They are Bolivia, Costa Rica, Colombia, Honduras, Nicaragua, Liberia, Guatemala, Mexico, and the US. All of those countries, excluding Mexico, the US, and Guatemala, have since rescinded the constitutional right to bear arms. So, America is the outlier here in terms of citizens’ rights to bear arms. Does it want to continue this, and put up with its horrible mass killings? Or does it want to consider repealing the 2nd Amendment (or, at the very least, amending the 2nd Amendment), thereby allowing the average American citizen to breathe that much easier in the ‘land of the free’?
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Poland: 1,200,000
Hungary:192,000
Romania: 143,000
Slovakia: 140,000
Czech Republic: 100,000
Moldova: 83,000
Germany: 30,000
France: 3,000
Ireland: 2,200
UK: 300
Shame on Britain!
9
-
9
-
If you look at a map of Europe, and you look at the extent of the NATO countries to 1997, they extend as far east as Germany. After 1997, NATO expands like a cancerous growth (as Putin sees it), to encompass 14 other nations, geographically extending as far east as Estonia and Latvia (crucially, from Putin’s point of view, ex-USSR components.) Now look at Ukraine on this map. A further incursion east, by a state with a majority looking west, not east. A further former ex-USSR component eating into (as Putin sees it) the motherland Russia. Now, I’m no supporter of Putin. He’s wrong to aggressively invade a sovereign, self-governing territory, in my opinion. However, this notwithstanding, I can fully see how, just by looking at a map and the physical geography alone, Putin might feel threatened and a little boxed in. Does this justify his behaviour? Not a jot.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
⛄️ Lovely to see this. These past few days sure have been crazy stuff. If it gets much worse they may have to alter the State names accordingly: could soon be seeing ‘Blew Jersey’, ‘Thawaii’, ‘Georjackfrost’, ‘Pennsylweathervania’, ‘Kansice’, ‘Massachillsetts’, ‘Califognia’, ‘New Hampshiver’, ‘Wicesconsin’, ‘Texice’, ‘Mittensota’, ‘Windiana’, ‘Buryland’, ‘Frozen Riverginia’, ‘Godforsakentucky’, ‘Connecticold’, ‘Flurryda’, ‘Slideaho’, ‘Snowshoe York’, ‘Iowhiteout’, ‘Michighandwarmers’, ‘Tennessleet’, ‘New Mexicool’, ‘Alaskia’, ‘Chillinois’, ‘Rhode Iceland’, ‘Mainedeer’, ‘North/South Dacoata’, ‘Coolorado’, ‘Rawest Virginia’, ‘Wysnowing’, ‘Uthaw’, ‘North/South Barrelina’, ‘Arizsnowa’, ‘Nevada’ - no change needed as already means ‘snowy mountains’, ‘Montanavalanche’, ‘Shivermont’, ‘Missfury’, ‘Delaglare’, ‘Starkansas’, ‘Thawregon’, ‘Oklabomba’, ‘Washingtoboggan’, ‘Squallabama’, ‘Nebbbrrrraska’, ‘Snowhio’, ‘Louicyana’ and ‘Missiceslippy’! 🥶
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@DoctorCongoChronicles While you make a valid point about Spain - IME, having lived there myself, the vast majority of Costa Brits don’t really make that much of an effort with the local language/culture if they don’t have to - it’s interesting to see the list of top countries with British immigrants:
Australia: 1,300,000
Spain: 761,000
United States: 678,000
Canada: 603,000
Ireland: 291,000
New Zealand: 215,000
South Africa: 212,000
France: 200,000
The striking thing about this list is that Brits are mostly emigrating to countries with a Westernised culture, for want of a better term. They are not pouring into Muslim countries in their hundreds of thousands with their Christianity and radically different cultural practices from the host country, thereby radically altering the cultural demographic in a matter of a few decades.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
The first thing that strikes anyone without skin in the game of this conflict, is how easy it is to solve. The essential point is a simple one: two peoples of roughly equal size have a claim to the same land. The solution is, obviously, to create two States side by side. However, those who do have a tendentious, non-objective point of view, namely the rabid rabbis and the mad mullahs and the perfervid priests, have served to scupper any chances of solution, obvious to everyone else. But the exclusive claims to god-given authority, made by hysterical clerics on both sides and further stoked by Armageddon-minded wacko Christians who hope to bring on the Apocalypse tout de suite (preceded by the death or conversion of all Jews), have made the situation insufferable, literally and metaphorically, and put the whole of humanity in the position of hostage to a squabble that now features the threat of nuclear conflagration. The moral of this sad, sorry tale, full of sound and fury, is that organised religion has so much to answer for, we may be here until the seas run dry and rocks melt in the hot middle-eastern sun, before it can claim any kind of alibi.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@utopiandreamer04 How does your ‘pacifist state’ argument explain the UK, France, Spain, Italy, all of Scandinavia, Australia, Canada, Indonesia, China, Belgium, Vietnam, Israel, Morocco, Bulgaria, Austria, Greece, Ireland etc etc etc., all of which have homicide rates consistently about 4x less than that of the US, whilst simultaneously not being ‘pacifist’ states?
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Whenever the topic of climate change/global warming comes up, as someone neither particularly right nor particularly left politically, I despair at how tribalised and polarised this debate becomes with each camp ensconced in their respective corners, equally convinced that their case is watertight. As ever with these things (and the reason I’m a centrist in almost everything), the truth lies somewhere in the middle. One of the most reasoned and balanced paragraphs I have ever read about this topic is the following from Stephen Pinker:
If the emission of greenhouse gases continues, the Earth’s average temperature will rise to at least 1.5°C above the preindustrial level by the end of the 21st century, and perhaps to 4°C above that level or more. That will cause more frequent and more severe heat waves, more floods in wet regions, more droughts in dry regions, heavier storms, more severe hurricanes, lower crop yields in warm regions, the extinction of more species, the loss of coral reefs (because the oceans will be both warmer and more acidic), and an average rise in sea level of between 0.7 metres and 1.2 metres from both the melting of land ice and the expansion of seawater. (Sea level has already risen almost eight inches since 1870, and the rate of the rise appears to be accelerating.) Low-lying areas would be flooded, island nations would disappear beneath the waves, large stretches of farmland would no longer be arable, and millions of people would be displaced. The effects could get still worse in the 22nd century and beyond, and in theory could trigger upheavals such as a diversion of the Gulf Stream (which would turn Europe into Siberia) or a collapse of the Antarctic ice sheets. A rise of 2°C is considered the most that the world could reasonably adapt to, and a rise of 4°C, in the words of a 2012 World Bank report, “simply must not be allowed to occur.”
The planet is warming. Fact. Humans (according to the overwhelming scientific consensus) are the principal cause of this warming over the past couple of centuries through fossil fuel burning. Now, given this, and given the consequences eloquently outlined by Pinker, we have to collectively decide whether we want to continue on this trajectory or not. For me, given the data, and given the projected consequences contingent upon that data, it makes utter sense to phase out fossil fuels. With this caveat: we must do it sensibly. They will be needed for some time to come as the transition to renewables is made. Who knows? Given that we are currently in an interglacial period, 500 years down the line when we have stopped using fossil fuels, the planet might start a rapid cooling trend leading to that ever-promised next Ice Age, and there might be a desperate clamour to start burning fossil fuels as quickly as possible!
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Sharron is just speaking common sense which, as we know, isn’t so common these days. In this debate, sex and gender are consistently conflated. If you’re male you have the xy chromosome and if you’re female you have the xx. Most, but not all, people fall into one of these two biologically-determined sex categories. Hermaphroditism is rare but should be noted here. As is xx male syndrome. Gender, however, is a socially-determined free for all, and is essentially down to feelings: you can be biologically male and identify as (or feel) “female” and vice-versa, but you cannot actually biologically flip from one to the other. These latter cases of self-identified gender I have no issue with and as long as you’re harming no one, then identify however you want. I don’t care. For me, where the issue arises is specifically when biological males seek to be accepted into biological female categories, and thereby inveigle themselves into female spaces, whether physical public spaces or spaces solely the preserve of females, such as female sports categories. This latter, for me, is as unfair as allowing an adult football team to play in an under-14s league. If a biological male person wants to identify as “female”, I personally have no problem with it; and if a biological female wants me to recognise them as “male”, again, I have no personal issue with this. It’s a free country after all and live and let live. It's when these same people (particularly trans women) claim patently unfair rights, as in Scotland recently, to invade the spaces that should be solely the preserve of biological females that my hackles are raised.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
It’s interesting that there were apparently only 3 signatories to the SNP’s financial accounts: Sturgeon, her “husband” and the financial treasurer guy. Now, with the best will in the world, one (perhaps all ) of these 3 has to know what happened to that missing £600,000 of donated money. My guess is that Sturgeon herself is clean here, as while I’m certainly no fan, I don’t think she would hoodwink us on this one if she were consciously complicit in something financially underhand. This leaves her “hubby” and the other guy. Or perhaps some other random got unauthorised access somehow to the SNP’s bank account. Who knows? The fact her hubby had to top-up the SNP coffers with his “own money” after the £600,000 had gone missing is fishy. It’s all as murky as the depths of Loch Ness. The SNP first loses 30,000 Party members (and a full 42% of membership since 2019). Then it “loses” £600,000 down the back of the sofa. To paraphrase the great Oscar: to lose 30,000 members may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose £600,000 looks like carelessness. 🛋 💰 🙈
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Russia, the biggest country by landmass, twice the size of Canada, the second biggest; given this, why can’t those ‘Russians’ in Ukraine just move to Russia, if they are unhappy? Ukraine is a sovereign territory. Has been since 1991. Up until 2014, it seems ethnic Russians were ok with living in Ukraine, co-existing with non-ethnic Russian Ukrainians, much like the Flemish share what we call Belgium with the Walloons. My feeling about all this, and it’s just a guess, is that even the ethnic Russians in Ukraine would be quite happy to live in a sovereign, self-governing Ukraine. My strong feeling about all this, is that since at least 2014, Russia (Putin, mainly) has stirred the pot and played on potential ethnic tensions that actually weren’t really that strong. Again, I have no proof, but my instinct, having closely observed this for nine weeks, is that this is actually about one man more than anything. Putin just couldn’t get over the ‘greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th Century’ (his words), that is, the dissolution of the USSR, and as he is about to pop his clogs, he was impelled to take his revenge for this before he does shuffle off this mortal coil. We should not underestimate just how much this really is one man’s war, and on that score, it just bespeaks how primitive we still are as a species, when we don’t have mechanisms in place to deal with these outlying, power-tripping fuckwits.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
According to the Human Freedom Index, which measures personal and economic freedom in 165 countries, representing 98.1% of the global population, using 82 indicators across 12 categories, Iran comes 5th last, with only Myanmar, Sudan, Yemen and Syria scoring worse. In 2021, Switzerland topped the Index at 9.01, followed by New Zealand and Denmark; the global average score was 7.12. Iran scored 4.03. Regions like North America and Western Europe score highest in freedom, whereas the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia rank lowest, with women's freedoms notably restricted. Venezuela, Egypt, Somalia, Saudi Arabia and Iraq made up the top 10 of those countries with least freedom. Aside from outliers like Myanmar and Venezuela, 8 of these countries have one thing in common: Islam.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
As ever with these things, this boils down to the human tribal mentality linked to race (Azerbaijani Azeris v Armenians), religion (Islam v Christianity) and language (Azerbaijani v Armenian). When I consider who I am, my ‘ethnicity’ is next to meaningless. An accident of birth. Equally, I care not a jot about anyone else’s ethnicity when I judge another human being. As an agnostic, I see all organised religion as manmade and, essentially, a human control mechanism along with a comforting fairy tale to shore up the human fear of death. Yes, my language is fairly key to my identity but, as someone who speaks 3 other languages, the only reason English takes precedence is another accident of birth. All told, ethnicity, organised religion and language have so much to answer for when it comes to human internecine conflict.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@hunter70558 So why do so many other developed nations not have America’s baleful gun culture? Germany, the UK, Japan, for example, don’t seem to have this terrible issue with gun crime, and yet there is relative peace in terms of general society, and certainly mass killings are rare. America needs to seriously look at its Second Amendment. There are only three countries that have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms: Mexico, Guatemala, and the United States. Although Mexico and Guatemala both have a constitutional right to bear arms, the US is in a league of its own simply because it is the only country without restrictions on gun ownership in its constitution. After the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, it inspired other countries around the world to provide their citizens with the right to own guns. However, only 15 constitutions (in nine countries) ever included an explicit right to bear arms. They are Bolivia, Costa Rica, Colombia, Honduras, Nicaragua, Liberia, Guatemala, Mexico, and the US. All of those countries, excluding Mexico, the US, and Guatemala, have since rescinded the constitutional right to bear arms. So, America is the outlier here in terms of citizens’ rights to bear arms. Does it want to continue this, and put up with its horrible mass killings? Or does it want to consider repealing the Second Amendment, thereby allowing the average American citizen to breathe that much easier in the ‘land of the free’?
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@rcas350pilot8 You need to ask yourself why so many other developed nations don’t have America’s baleful gun culture? Germany, the UK, Japan, for example, don’t seem to have this terrible issue with gun crime, and yet there is relative peace in terms of general society, and certainly mass killings are rare. America needs to seriously look at its Second Amendment. There are only three countries that have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms: Mexico, Guatemala, and the United States. Although Mexico and Guatemala both have a constitutional right to bear arms, the US is in a league of its own simply because it is the only country without restrictions on gun ownership in its constitution. After the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, it inspired other countries around the world to provide their citizens with the right to own guns. However, only 15 constitutions (in nine countries) ever included an explicit right to bear arms. They are Bolivia, Costa Rica, Colombia, Honduras, Nicaragua, Liberia, Guatemala, Mexico, and the US. All of those countries, excluding Mexico, the US, and Guatemala, have since rescinded the constitutional right to bear arms. So, America is the outlier here in terms of citizens’ rights to bear arms. Does it want to continue this, and put up with its horrible mass killings? Or does it want to consider repealing the Second Amendment, or at the very least amending it, thereby allowing the average American citizen to breathe that much easier in the ‘land of the free’? Furthermore, you need to ask why America has a homicide rate consistently about 4x that of comparable countries, including the UK (so your knife-crime potshot doesn’t work, in this case). I would suggest a massive part of the answer to this is ridiculously easy legal access to firearms in America.
8
-
8
-
8
-
And so the global 👓s turn to Israel for 5 minutes. Ah, the 🇮🇱-🇵🇸 conflict. Well, the first thing that strikes anyone without skin in the game of this conflict, is how easy it is to solve. The essential point is a simple one. Two peoples of roughly equal size have a claim to the same land. The solution is, obviously, to create two states side by side. However, those who do have a tendentious, non-objective point of view, namely the rabid rabbis and the mad mullahs and the pervervid priests, have served to scupper any chances of solution, obvious to everyone else. But the exclusive claims to god-given authority, made by hysterical clerics on both sides and further stoked by Armageddon-minded wacko Christians who hope to bring on the Apocalypse tout de suite (preceded by the death or conversion of all Jews), have made the situation insufferable, literally and metaphorically, and put the whole of humanity in the position of hostage to a squabble that now features the threat of nuclear conflagration. The moral of this sad, sorry tale, full of sound and fury, is that organised religion has so much to answer for, we may be here until the seas run dry and rocks melt in the hot middle-eastern sun, before it can claim any kind of alibi.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
The hypocrisy of those who desire to ban ‘vulgar’ books, whilst they themselves uphold the most ‘vulgar’ book of all, the Bible. I’m no atheist, but when it comes to the Old Testament God, the putative God of Christians, Jews and Muslims, it’s hard to imagine a nastier piece of work within a piece of work, as it were. Richard Dawkins nailed him exquisitely: The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. In terms of ‘vulgarity’ there is no book that comes close, in my opinion.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@tastypymp1287 Never got the “hate what another human does when it comes to their sexual preferences” memo. Makes utterly no sense. I tend to dislike people for their ideas, their beliefs, their opinions, their dress-sense, and not something over which they have utterly no say or control. It’s like dissing people with different skin colour. Pointless. Not only pointless, but utterly stupid and moronic, as no one chooses their skin colour, just as no one chooses their sexuality. But here’s the clincher for me: even if we did choose our skin colour and sexuality, it still wouldn’t bother me one iota that some random has a different skin colour or sexuality to me. The sooner we can move beyond this primitive nonsense as a species, the better. To me, being homophobic is a bit like feeling resentful of someone digging Uranus because you’re not an astronomer! 🔭 👈My argument.
Where’s yours? 🤔🤡
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
The first thing that strikes anyone without skin in the game of this conflict, is how easy it is to solve. The essential point is a simple one. Two peoples of roughly equal size have a claim to the same land. The solution is, obviously, to create two states side by side. However, those who do have a tendentious, non-objective point of view, namely the rabid rabbis and the mad mullahs and the perfervid priests, have served to scupper any chances of solution, obvious to everyone else. But the exclusive claims to god-given authority, made by hysterical clerics on both sides and further stoked by Armageddon-minded wacko Christians who hope to bring on the Apocalypse tout de suite (preceded by the death or conversion of all Jews), have made the situation insufferable, literally and metaphorically, and put the whole of humanity in the position of hostage to a squabble that now features the threat of nuclear conflagration. The moral of this sad, sorry tale, full of sound and fury, is that organised religion has so much to answer for, we may be here until the seas run dry and rocks melt in the hot middle-eastern sun, before it can claim any kind of alibi.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
The trouble humanity has, and has always had, is one of self-definition. Before ‘human being’, first and foremost, we seem to want to put this or that random accident of birth, or this or that imagined daddy in the sky. Individually, this is not an issue. However, when we band together with others on the basis of random accidents of birth and imagined daddies in the sky, the trouble starts. Nietzsche looked at this in the eye and called it: In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. With an outlier like Putin, we need to develop a workable system of removing such dictators from positions of power. In the kindergarten, the staff don’t allow a single bully to ride roughshod over others as whim dictates. Why, then, do we allow this as adults? 👀
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
This is really a question of priorities. People use the argument that France shouldn’t have given so much aid to Ukraine, but to date that has been about $300 million - a drop in the ocean, when compared to the billions pensions cost per year. The other thing to factor in here is that France is 3rd in a list of OECD countries in terms of the proportion of its GDP its pensions take up at 14%. For comparison, the UK is 5%. Pushing back the retirement age by two years and extending the pay-in period would yield an additional 17.7 billion euros ($19.0 billion) in annual pension contributions, allowing the system to break even by 2027. Economically, Macron’s measure makes sense, but the way it has been done is awful and undemocratic, and the only reason he bypassed a vote was he knew it would be voted down. After Denmark, France is the second highest taxed country in Europe, but my own proposal would be to raise the tax threshold for the top band earners in France, and let the middle and lower income workers retire at 62 after a life of work. After all, the rich can retire at any point they want! The less rich don’t have the luxury of that choice.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Personally, I’m just generally meh about Schofield (he comes across as smug, entitled and arrogant), but it seems his only real “crime” here is sharing the genes of a paedo. No particular issue with the younger guy thing if he was legal and it was consensual. Those who bang on about his “betrayal” of his wife, always seem to totally ignore the fact that he and his wife are best of friends to this day and his daughters appear to have no issue. From Willoughby’s point of view, I suppose I can kind of get it: in a prime-time telly partnership with the brother of a convicted kiddy-fiddler isn’t the best of looks for a media person, and I can imagine her, perfectly understandably, wanting to professionally (perhaps personally, too) distance herself from him. That said, the bottom line for me is that Schofield himself has essentially committed no crime and the witch-hunt surrounding him baffles me somewhat.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
In this debate, sex and gender are consistently conflated. If you’re male you have the xy chromosome and if you’re female you have the xx. Most, but not all, people fall into one of these two biologically-determined sex categories. Hermaphroditism is rare but should be noted here. As is xx male syndrome. Gender, however, is a socially-determined free for all, and is essentially down to feelings: you can be biologically male and identify as (or feel) “female” and vice-versa, but you cannot actually biologically flip from one to the other. These latter cases of self-identified gender I have no issue with and as long as you’re harming no one, then identify however you want. I don’t care. For me, where the issue arises is specifically when biological males seek to be accepted into biological female categories, and thereby inveigle themselves into female spaces, whether physical public spaces or spaces solely the preserve of females, such as female sports categories. This latter, for me, is as unfair as allowing an adult football team to play in an under-14s league. If a biological male person wants to identify as “female”, I personally have no problem with it; and if a biological female wants me to recognise them as “male”, again, I have no personal issue with this. It’s a free country after all and live and let live. It's when these same people (particularly trans women) claim patently unfair rights, as in Scotland recently, to invade the spaces that should be solely the preserve of biological females that my hackles are raised.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
As ever with these things, this whole thing boils down to the human tribal mentality linked to race (Azerbaijani Azeris v Armenians), religion (Islam v Christianity) and language (Azerbaijani v Armenian). When I consider who I am, my ‘ethnicity’ is next to meaningless. An accident of birth. Equally, I care not a jot about anyone else’s ethnicity when I judge another human being. As an agnostic, I see all organised religion as manmade and, essentially, a human control mechanism along with a comforting fairy tale to shore up the human fear of death. Yes, my language is fairly key to my identity but, as someone who speaks 3 other languages, the only reason English takes precedence is another accident of birth. All told, ethnicity, organised religion and language have so much to answer for when it comes to human internecine conflict.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@johnanderson4214 Such a tired cliche. People without guns might not kill people, but give them free and easy access to them, and suddenly the killing rises dramatically. Why does America consistently have a homicide rate 4x that of comparable countries?
Why do so many other developed nations not have America’s baleful gun culture? Germany, the UK, Japan, for example, don’t seem to have this terrible issue with gun crime, and yet there is relative peace in terms of general society, and certainly mass killings are rare. America needs to seriously look at its Second Amendment. There are only three countries that have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms: Mexico, Guatemala, and the United States. Although Mexico and Guatemala both have a constitutional right to bear arms, the US is in a league of its own simply because it is the only country without restrictions on gun ownership in its constitution. After the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, it inspired other countries around the world to provide their citizens with the right to own guns. However, only 15 constitutions (in nine countries) ever included an explicit right to bear arms. They are Bolivia, Costa Rica, Colombia, Honduras, Nicaragua, Liberia, Guatemala, Mexico, and the US. All of those countries, excluding Mexico, the US, and Guatemala, have since rescinded the constitutional right to bear arms. So, America is the outlier here in terms of citizens’ rights to bear arms. Does it want to continue this, and put up with its horrible mass killings? Or does it want to consider repealing the Second Amendment, thereby allowing the average American citizen to breathe that much easier in the ‘land of the free’?
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Never got the ‘hate what another human does when it comes to their sexual preferences’ memo. Makes utterly no sense. I tend to dislike people for their ideas, their beliefs, their opinions, their dress-sense, their bad breath, their BO and not something over which they have utterly no say or control. It’s like dissing people with a different skin colour. Pointless. Not only pointless, but totally stupid and moronic, as no one chooses their skin colour, just as no one chooses their sexuality. But here’s the clincher for me: even if we did choose our skin colour and sexuality, it still wouldn’t bother me one iota that some random has a different skin colour or sexuality. The sooner we can move beyond this primitive nonsense as a species, the better. To me, being homophobic is a bit like feeling resentful of someone digging Uranus because you’re not an astronomer! 🔭
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Never got the “hate what another human does when it comes to their sexual orientation” memo. Makes utterly no sense. I tend to dislike people for their ideas, their beliefs, their opinions, their dress-sense, and not something over which they have utterly no say or control. It’s like dissing people with different skin colour. Pointless. Not only pointless, but utterly stupid and moronic, as no one chooses their skin colour, just as no one chooses their sexuality. But here’s the clincher for me: even if we did choose our skin colour and sexuality, it still wouldn’t bother me one iota that some random has a different skin colour or sexuality to me. The sooner we can move beyond this primitive nonsense as a species, the better. To me, being homophobic is a bit like feeling resentful of someone digging Uranus because you’re not an astronomer! 🔭
7
-
7
-
7
-
So, why might people have a downer on homosexuality?
•It is ‘unnatural’ - All the research (both scientific and anecdotal) overwhelmingly indicates that sexuality isn’t a choice. The vast majority of us, if we are honest, will attest we were romantically/sexually attracted to others very early (and, conversely, not attracted to others) and no volitional choice, as such, was involved in this attraction. In my own case, I knew when I was about 4 that I fancied girls.
•Being gay is a ‘sin’ - This argument is just a non-starter, really, given that presumably this ‘sin’ was ordained by ‘God’, and as that ‘God’ hasn’t been verified (manmade written texts don’t count), then using the ‘it’s a sin’ argument won’t float.
•Being gay is, somehow, ‘transmissible’ - This one is ridiculous. You can’t ‘catch’ homosexuality like you can catch a virus, any more than you can ‘catch’ heterosexuality. You are either gay or you aren’t, just as you are heterosexual, or you aren’t. Or, for that matter, you are bisexual, or you aren’t. Those against homosexuality never use this one the other way: Gay people are surrounded by heterosexual culture 24/7/365. Gays are simply assumed to be heterosexual until they state that they are not. Every example, with a very few exceptions, of love & romance in our media is heterosexual. Given this saturation, you’d think all of this exposure to hetty culture might ‘turn’ gays heterosexual, but it doesn’t. It doesn’t in exactly the same way that exposing heterosexuals to gays/gay culture ‘turns’ them, because with sexuality, we just are, and from a pretty early age.
•Gays have an ‘agenda’ - Of all the arguments I have heard against homosexuality, this is the only one that might be seen to hold some water, not because it’s a moral argument, as such, but because I can understand why people might not be particularly keen to have what they perceive as ‘gay issues’ shoved down their throats, for want of a better phrase. Even as someone who has zero moral issue with homosexuality, this modern-day aspect of the topic can be annoying. However, it should be pointed out, that those gays who are politically motivated represent a minuscule (<1%) rump of activists heard and seen out of all proportion to their size; meanwhile, the vast majority of gays are simply quietly living their lives unseen and unheard and bothering no one.
•What gays actually do in the bedroom is ‘disgusting’ - Well, this is clearly subjective. Museveni seems to think it’s ‘disgusting’, even though he laughably claimed he never knew what they did! In terms of criminality, this is rather simple: if you are going to criminalise consenting adults for performing ‘disgusting’ bedroom antics (i.e. anal/oral sex), then you need to apply this law consistently and criminalise the millions of consenting heterosexual adults having anal/oral sex. If this isn’t done, and heterosexuals are treated in exactly the same way by the law vis-à-vis anal/oral sex, then you can be sure this is just about irrationally criminalising a minority whose behaviours you are personally ‘disgusted’ by.
Conclusion: No one, hitherto, has given me a single, rational, credible reason as to why I should support the criminalisation of gay sex.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
According to official government stats, the top 5 nationalities arriving illegally into the UK via Channel boats from July 2021-June 2023 are Iran, Albania, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. What do these countries have in common? Every single one has a massive Muslim majority population. Even Albania, which I was surprised to discover is nearly 60% Muslim. In principle, I have no intrinsic issue with immigration, provided it is legal and strictly controlled. What we have here is a free-for-all. A free-for-all 99% led by Islam. Yesterday, 700+ made the trip. Imagine if the UK had better weather: 700+ would be making that trip every single day of the year! That’s well over 250,000 unregulated, undocumented people we know nothing about p/y. The UK currently has a 7% Muslim population. Current projections predict it will be 17% by 2050. By 2050 Sweden is predicted to have a 30% Muslim population; a third of Sweden will be Islamic. Interesting times. If you drop a drip of red dye into a bath full of water it doesn’t show up. If you pour a bucket of red dye into the same bath, it changes it instantly forever. There’s a lot to be said for gradualism.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@babblo1389 Doesn’t preclude Ukraine letting a few punches swing in Russia itself; after all, Putin has hammered large parts of Ukraine for over a month now. For Russia to appear almost offended that Ukraine throw a few right hooks is laughable, given Putin’s brutal record, not just in Ukraine, but in Syria, Georgia, Chechnya, not to mention the ongoing domestic ‘warfare’ he commits every day to his own people in Russia, under his primitive, benighted, backwards dictatorship.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
I’ve always found it interesting when Europeans who consider themselves ‘indigenous’ to this continent and more entitled thereby compared to other less-entitled, ‘non-indigenous’ folk, suddenly go silent when America is mentioned, or Australia, or New Zealand, or Mexico, or Peru, or Brazil; for by their logic no European who arrived post-1519 in Mexico, post-1524 in Peru, post-1500 in Brazil, post-1620 in America, and no European who arrived after 1606 in Australia and in New Zealand after 1642 has more entitlement than the ‘indigenous’ Aborigines, or those who were inhabiting these lands for thousands of years before Europeans aggressively pitched up. Not to mention all the African and Indian nonsense that went on as Europeans arrived and belligerently imposed their ways. No, somehow it’s ok that European settlers moved to these places and brutally subjugated (and in millions of cases, enslaved) those already settled there, but when non-Europeans arrive in Europe, to work, to seek a better life in most cases, somehow that’s just not on. Hypocrisy and double-standards doesn’t begin to cover it, and those who moan about immigration into Europe have not a leg to stand on when a few non-Europeans pitch up in their backyard to play.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
When I first heard this, I thought, how silly, and potentially racist and exclusionary, and yes, if an all-white play asked only whites to attend they would be accused of racism, and possibly rightly so. Then I read a bit more and the black-only audience is for one night only , and that changed my opinion. As the play broaches very specific black-experience themes, it’s actually quite a nice idea to have a performance aimed solely at those who directly fall into that category, in the same way that I wouldn’t have an issue if a play with intrinsically, say, homosexual themes, performed a one-night only show only to gays. However, my cynical overriding feeling about all this is that it is a bit of a publicity stunt. As they say: any publicity is good publicity!
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@aleksandars764 I kinda think if the Palestinians were offered their own state including the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the majority would accept. Tbh, given that Israel didn’t exist until 1948, I don’t think this is too demanding. After all, Israel took the Golan Heights from Syria and, tbf, it has enough to be getting on with. I suppose my basic point is rather simple, this will not end without a 2 state solution: Israel and Palestine within safe, secure borders. It seems everyone else can see this, aside from Israelis and Palestinians!
7
-
@onlineonlineaccount2368 According to UN estimates from mid-2020, the most common countries of birth of the foreign born population in France were: Algeria (1,637,000), Morocco (1,060,000), Portugal (640,000), Tunisia (445,000), Turkey (340,000), Italy (326,000), Spain (282,000), Germany (203,000), United Kingdom (170,000), Belgium (164,000).
Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria were all in the top 5 making your statement about the largest amount of French immigrants being from the EU utter poppycock!
7
-
As ever with these things, this boils down to the human tribal mentality linked to race (Azerbaijani Azeris v Armenians), religion (Islam v Christianity) and language (Azerbaijani v Armenian). When I consider who I am, my ‘ethnicity’ is next to meaningless. An accident of birth. Equally, I care not a jot about anyone else’s ethnicity when I judge another human being. As an agnostic, I see all organised religion as manmade and, essentially, a human control mechanism along with a comforting fairy tale to shore up the human fear of death. Yes, my language is fairly key to my identity but, as someone who speaks 3 other languages, the only reason English takes precedence is another accident of birth. All told, ethnicity, organised religion and language have so much to answer for when it comes to human internecine conflict.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
The biggest mistake Putin has made here was to arrogantly assume a majority of Ukrainians would simply roll over and have their stomachs tickled by the Russians as they rolled in with their tanks. This is the kind of tone-deafness you get when no one has been able to say ‘no’ to one man for 22 years. In a very real sense, the cause of this war rests squarely on Putin’s shoulders and his mad, misguided designs for a greater mother Russia largely conforming to the old USSR. This is why if Putin succeeds in subjugating Ukraine, then Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania should be very afraid. The good news for them (but not the Ukrainians) is that it looks like because of Putin’s arrogance he may be bogged down in Ukraine for years to come, and even if Russia does subjugate Ukraine, that will only be the beginning, as internal resistance to Russia will be immense. Putin’s 5 main demands: 1. Neutral Ukraine with concomitant commitment never to join NATO. 2. Ukraine disarmed. 3. Protection for Russian language in Ukraine. 4. DeNazification of Ukraine. 5. Crimea formally identified as Russian along with other parts of east Ukraine, including the Donbas … for me, these should be seriously considered by Ukraine, to save what very probably will be the utter destruction of the country and the loss of a large proportion of Ukrainians. If and when Russia can move into some kind of post-Putin democracy, then some of these things may be looked at again. Part of me thinks we should humour this nuclear-armed (blackmail? Perhaps) dictator until he has shuffled off this mortal coil.
7
-
7
-
7
-
We’re basically already there as there is a large lag effect in the climate and global warming situation. However, in this debate I do wish people would stop talking about ‘climate change’. The climate has been ‘changing’ for about 4 billion years when this 3rd rock from the sun emerged. The real issue is ‘global warming’, and how much humankind is complicit in this warming. That the planet is warming, and warming rather alarmingly rapidly, is indubitable. What’s not quite as indubitable is how much human activity is contributing to this. On balance, having looked at the evidence, I happen to think that humans are significantly contributing to global warming through fossil fuel burning. Given this, it makes utter sense to phase out fossil fuels. With this caveat: we must do it sensibly. They will be needed for some time to come as the transition to renewables is made. Who knows? Given that we are currently in an inter-glacial period, 500 years down the line when we have stopped using fossil fuels, the planet might start a rapid cooling trend leading to that ever-promised next Ice Age, and there might be a desperate clamour to start burning fossil fuels as quickly as possible!
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
The first thing that strikes anyone without skin in the game of this conflict, is how easy it is to solve. The essential point is a simple one: two peoples of roughly equal size have a claim to the same land. The solution is, obviously, to create two states side by side. However, those who do have a tendentious, non-objective point of view, namely the rabid rabbis and the mad mullahs and the pervervid priests, have served to scupper any chances of solution, obvious to everyone else. But the exclusive claims to god-given authority, made by hysterical clerics on both sides and further stoked by Armageddon-minded wacko Christians who hope to bring on the Apocalypse tout de suite (preceded by the death or conversion of all Jews), have made the situation insufferable, literally and metaphorically, and put the whole of humanity in the position of hostage to a squabble that now features the threat of nuclear conflagration. The moral of this sad, sorry tale, full of sound and fury, is that organised religion has so much to answer for, we may be here until the seas run dry and rocks melt in the hot middle-eastern sun, before it can claim any kind of alibi.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Whenever the topic of climate change/global warming comes up, as someone neither particularly right nor particularly left politically, I despair at how tribalised and polarised this debate becomes with each camp ensconced in their respective corners, equally convinced that their case is watertight. As ever with these things (and the reason I’m a centrist in almost everything), the truth lies somewhere in the middle. One of the most reasoned and balanced paragraphs I have ever read about this topic is the following from Stephen Pinker:
If the emission of greenhouse gases continues, the Earth’s average temperature will rise to at least 1.5°C above the preindustrial level by the end of the 21st century, and perhaps to 4°C above that level or more. That will cause more frequent and more severe heat waves, more floods in wet regions, more droughts in dry regions, heavier storms, more severe hurricanes, lower crop yields in warm regions, the extinction of more species, the loss of coral reefs (because the oceans will be both warmer and more acidic), and an average rise in sea level of between 0.7 metres and 1.2 metres from both the melting of land ice and the expansion of seawater. (Sea level has already risen almost eight inches since 1870, and the rate of the rise appears to be accelerating.) Low-lying areas would be flooded, island nations would disappear beneath the waves, large stretches of farmland would no longer be arable, and millions of people would be displaced. The effects could get still worse in the 22nd century and beyond, and in theory could trigger upheavals such as a diversion of the Gulf Stream (which would turn Europe into Siberia) or a collapse of the Antarctic ice sheets. A rise of 2°C is considered the most that the world could reasonably adapt to, and a rise of 4°C, in the words of a 2012 World Bank report, “simply must not be allowed to occur.”
The planet is warming. Fact. Humans (according to the overwhelming scientific consensus) are the principal cause of this warming over the past couple of centuries through fossil fuel burning. Now, given this, and given the consequences eloquently outlined by Pinker, we have to collectively decide whether we want to continue on this trajectory or not. For me, given the data, and given the projected consequences contingent upon that data, it makes utter sense to phase out fossil fuels. With this caveat: we must do it sensibly. They will be needed for some time to come as the transition to renewables is made. Who knows? Given that we are currently in an inter-glacial period, 500 years down the line when we have stopped using fossil fuels, the planet might start a rapid cooling trend leading to that ever-promised next Ice Age, and there might be a desperate clamour to start burning fossil fuels as quickly as possible!
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
While there is more than the smack of ‘whataboutery’ here, he does have a point. If we look at the historical records of every single host nation in terms of past behaviour, out of Uruguay, Switzerland, Sweden, Chile, England, Germany, Argentina, Spain, Mexico, Italy, USA, France, South Korea, Japan, South Africa, Brazil, Russia, Qatar, I’d only really give a pass to Switzerland, Sweden and South Korea. The rest have terrible national historical crimes to atone for, including horrendous human rights violations, whether committed on others, or committed on their own people. In terms of Qatar, they quite obviously fall into this ignominious record, but because we have rolling news 24/7/365 and everyone is obliged to have an opinion on everything it seems, it feels like they are being picked on in a more than hypocritical manner by the West.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@Ranzoe813 My point was the idea of “nationalism” specifically. All this nonsense is essentially because men decided to draw lines on maps to arbitrarily designate this area as against that area. Never got nationalism, which is essentially just tribalism on steroids that requires you to put your societal overlords’ agendas over your own. For one thing, no one has any say where they are born, so to take some kind of weird, unearned pride in a random accident of birth is irrational. For another thing, we are artificially programmed to believe that we are to have more loyalty to anyone else that was born in the same artificial territory as we are, but again this is just irrational and stupid, for human beings are incredibly complex and automatically liking and feeling solidarity with this or that human solely according to the idea that they happened to be plopped out by their mother in the same spot on Earth is a moronic notion when really considered. I like/dislike human beings for a whole host of reasons; their opinions, their ideas, their dress sense, the way they treat others etc. but the idea that I should like them and feel loyalty to them on a random accident of birth, something over which none of us have any say, isn’t (and shouldn’t be) on my radar. The moment you ask me to die for you simply because we are from the same town/city/country, you are crossing into irrational territory and losing me right there and then. The only thing worth dying for is a good cause (so you'd better have one ready), and most of the time, wars started by nation-states are rooted in anything but good causes.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I am frequently asked if I have visited Israel, whereas yet, it is simply assumed that I have. Well, I don’t travel. I really don’t, and if I did, I probably wouldn’t visit Israel. I remember how it was in 1948 when Israel was being established and all my Jewish friends were ecstatic. I was not. I said: what are we doing? We are establishing ourselves in a ghetto, in a small corner of a vast Muslim sea. The Muslims will never forget nor forgive, and Israel, as long as it exists, will be embattled. I was laughed at, but I was right. I can’t help but feel that the Jews didn’t really have the right to appropriate a territory only because 2000 years ago, people they consider their ancestors, were living there. History moves on and you can’t really turn it back. (Isaac Asimov)
Of course, history has proved Asimov right. However, now that we’re here, if Israel has a right to exist as a state (and it does IMO), then so does Palestine. Until this is acknowledged by the relevant parties and properly implemented (with justice and freedom and dignity for both sides), this nightmare will be doomed to be repeated on a loop ad infinitum into eternity.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
In sad times such as these, I tend to find George Carlin can invariably lift me out of the funk: “Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!
But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money!” 🤣
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
This war is savage. It’s also odd. Quite clearly, Russia could destroy Ukraine militarily in a week if it unleashed its full firepower. However, Putin’s mad mind seemed to have thought that the Ukrainians would would just roll over and have their tummies tickled when his Kremlin tanks rolled into town. Russia’s (Putin’s, mainly) biggest mistake in this whole farrago is to egregiously underestimate the power of home advantage, and to fatally misread the feelings of the vast majority of Ukrainians. Yes, there is a sizeable Ukrainian minority favourable to Russia, but in a country of 44 million, that minority is not going to carry a victory for Russia, and it never was. The sooner Putin realises this, he’ll crawl back under the rock from whence he came. Or, preferably, just shuffle off this mortal coil, as for so many, he’s clearly outstayed his welcome.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I’ve always found it interesting when Europeans who consider themselves ‘indigenous’ to this continent and more entitled thereby compared to other less-entitled, ‘non-indigenous’ folk, suddenly go silent when America is mentioned, or Australia, or New Zealand, or Mexico, or Peru, or Brazil; for by their logic no European who arrived post 1519 in Mexico, post 1524 in Peru, post 1500 in Brazil, post 1620 in America, and no European who arrived after 1606 in Australia and in New Zealand after 1642 has more entitlement than the ‘indigenous’ Aborigines. Not to mention all the African and Indian nonsense that went on as Europeans arrived and aggressively imposed their ways. No, somehow it’s ok that European settlers moved to these places and brutally subjugated (and in millions of cases, enslaved) those already settled there, but when non-Europeans arrive in Europe, to work, to seek a better life in most cases, somehow that’s just not on. Hypocrisy and double-standards doesn’t begin to cover it, and Le Pen and her ilk have not a leg to stand on when a few non-Europeans pitch up in their backyard to play.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
There are currently 64 countries (out of 195) in the world that criminalise homosexuality. What do these countries (aside from criminalizing homosexuality) have in common? Three factors - economic development (or the lack thereof), democracy (or the lack thereof) and religion - seem to be significant. All or most of these countries are some of the poorest on the planet, have very strong religious leanings (mainly Islam/Christianity) and score very poorly on democracy tables when ranked. Of the 64, 29 are in benighted Africa, 22 in Asia, 5 in the Americas and 7 in Oceania. No country in enlightened Europe has a law against homosexuality. Why would it? 🤷♂️ It’s just 2 consenting adults having sex after all, and, last time I checked, that’s really no one (state or individual) else’s business. Europe also has some of the wealthiest countries on Earth, relatively low levels of organised religion and high levels of democracy. Here’s the unholy list of the countries that like to unreasonably, unjustifiably meddle in the sex lives of consenting adults:
Africa
Algeria
Cameroon
Chad
Comoros
Egypt
Eritrea
Eswatini (Swaziland)
Ethiopia
Gambia
Ghana
Guinea
Kenya
Liberia
Libya
Malawi
Mauritania
Morocco
Nigeria
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Somalia
South Sudan
Sudan
Tanzania
Togo
Tunisia
Uganda
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Asia, including the Middle East
Afghanistan
Bangladesh
Brunei
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Kuwait
Lebanon
Malaysia
Maldives
Myanmar
Oman
Pakistan
Palestine
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Sri Lanka
Syria
Turkmenistan
United Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan
Yemen
Americas
Grenada
Guyana
Jamaica
St Lucia
St Vincent & the Grenadines
Oceania
Kiribati
Niue
Papua New Guinea
Samoa
Solomon Islands
Tonga
Tuvalu
6
-
It’s a process. It’s a process whereby gay men and women simply gain the right to have consensual adult sex free of fear of criminalisation involving fines, imprisonment or worse, wherever they are on the planet.
The following is a timeline list of when and where homosexuality was decriminalised. This list is interesting as it gives the lie, somewhat, to the idea that decriminalising homosexuality is a wholly (or even a mainly) ‘Western thing’, so apparently feared by lube-head here. To pick some examples at random to demonstrate this: Turkey decriminalised in 1858; Japan in 1882; Taiwan in 1912; Thailand in 1956… while it was as late as 1967 in England/Wales and, remarkably, even later in the country of my birth, Scotland, in 1981. Equally remarkably, it was as late as 1993 before it was decriminalised in Washington DC, another 10 years after this before all the states had decriminalised. Added to this is the notable fact that in the list where homosexuality has never been illegal, almost every single country, without exception, is non-Western.
•Never been illegal
Aruba, Netherlands
Benin
Burkina Faso
Cambodia
Central African Republic
Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Republic of the Congo
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Christmas Island, Australia
Curaçao Curaçao, Netherlands
Djibouti
Equatorial Guinea
French Polynesia, France
Indonesia
Ivory Coast
Laos
Madagascar
Mali
Mayotte, France
Federated States of Micronesia
New Caledonia, France
Niger
North Korea
Rwanda
Sint Maarten, Netherlands
South Korea
Philippines
Vietnam
Wallis and Futuna, France
•18th Century
1791: Andorra
France Kingdom of France (includes Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Réunion, San Barthélemy, Saint Martin, and Saint Pierre and Miquelon)
Haiti Saint-Domingue (Haiti)
1793: Monaco
1794: Luxembourg
1795: Belgium
1798: Canton of Geneva, Switzerland
Ticino, Switzerland
Vaud, Switzerland
Valais, Switzerland
•19th Century
1811: Netherlands
1822: Dominican Republic
El Salvador
1830: Brazil
1832: Bolivia
1853: Argentina
1858: Turkey
1864: San Marino
1869: Suriname
1871: Guatemala
Mexico
1882: Japan
1890: Italy
Vatican City
1899: Honduras
•20th Century
1912: Taiwan
1924: Peru
1933: Denmark (includes Greenland and Faroe Islands)
1932: Poland
1934: Uruguay
1940: Iceland
1942: Switzerland
1944: Sweden
1951: Greece
Jordan
Palestine
1956: Thailand
1961: Hungary
1962: Czechoslovakia
Illinois, United States
1967: England and Wales, United Kingdom
1968: Bulgaria
East Germany
1969: Canada
West Germany
1971: Austria
Connecticut, United States
Costa Rica
Finland
1972: Colorado, United States
Oregon, United States
Norway
1973: Delaware, United States
Hawaii, United States
Malta
North Dakota, United States
1974: Massachusetts, United States
Ohio, United States
1975: East Timor
New Hampshire, United States
New Mexico, United States
South Australia
1976: Australian Capital Territory
Bahrain
California, United States
Indiana, United States
Maine, United States
Washington (state), United States
West Virginia, United States
1977: Croatia
Montenegro
Slovenia
South Dakota, United States
Vermont, United States
Wyoming, United States
1978: Guam, United States
Iowa, United States
Nebraska, United States
New Jersey, United States
1979: Cuba
Spain
1980: American, United States
New York, United States
Pennsylvania, United States
1981: Colombia
Scotland, United Kingdom
Victoria, Australia
1982: Northern Ireland, United Kingdom
1983: Guernsey, United Kingdom
Northern Mariana Islands
Northern Territory, Australia
Portugal
Wisconsin, United States
1984: New South Wales, Australia
1985: Virgin Islands, United States
1986: New Zealand
1988: Israel
1989: Falkland Islands, United Kingdom
Liechtenstein
1990: Jersey, United Kingdom
Paraguay
Western Australia
1991: Bahamas
Abkhazia
Hong Kong
Queensland, Australia
South Ossetia
Ukraine
1992: Estonia
Isle of Man, United Kingdom
Kentucky, United States
Latvia
1993: Washington, D.C. District of Columbia, United States
Gibraltar, United Kingdom
Guinea-Bissau
Republic of Ireland
Lithuania
Mongolia
Nevada Nevada, United States
Norfolk Island, Australia
Russia
1994: Kosovo
Belarus
Bermuda Bermuda, United Kingdom
Serbia
1995: Albania
Moldova
1996: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Portuguese Macau
North Macedonia
Romania
Tennessee, United States
1997: China
Ecuador
Montana, United States
Tasmania, Australia
Venezuela
1998: Cyprus Cyprus
Georgia, United States
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Republika Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Rhode Island, United States
South Africa
Tajikistan
1999: Chile
Maryland, United States
2000: Akrotiri and Dhekelia, United Kingdom
Azerbaijan
Georgia (country)
•21st Century
2001: Anguilla, United Kingdom
Arizona, United States
Bosnia and Herzegovina
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands, United Kingdom
Minnesota, United States
Montserrat, United Kingdom
Saint Helena
Pitcairn Islands, United Kingdom
Turks and Caicos Islands, United Kingdom
2002: Arkansas, United States
Transnistria
2003: Armenia
Tokelau, New Zealand
United States (nationwide)
2004: Cape Verde
2005: Marshall Islands
2007: Nepal
Vanuatu
2008: Nicaragua
Panama
2010: Fiji
2012: Lesotho
São Tomé and Príncipe
2014: Northern Cyprus
Palau
2015: Mozambique
2016: Belize
Nauru
Seychelles
2018: India
Trinidad and Tobago
2019: Botswana
2020: Gabon
2021: Angola
Bhutan
2022: Antigua and Barbuda
Barbados
Singapore
Saint Kitts and Nevis
2023: Cook Islands, New Zealand
Mauritius
2024: Dominica
Namibia
6
-
The Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Act (2023) prescribes up to twenty years in prison for ‘promotion of homosexuality’, life imprisonment for ‘homosexual acts’, and the death penalty for ‘aggravated homosexuality’.
1. How, exactly, can you ‘promote’ homosexuality? This isn’t about trying to persuade people to become gay, as if you are trying to persuade people to vote for you, or persuade people to buy a new whizz-bang, fancy-pants vibrator (ijumpjudy has just put in her order - extra batteries included 😉); that’s impossible. It’s not like you can ‘catch’ homosexuality like you can catch a virus, any more than you can ‘catch’ heterosexuality. You are either gay or you aren’t, just as you are heterosexual, or you aren’t. So, primitively prescribing 20 years imprisonment for something you either are or aren’t no matter how much ‘promoting’ is done is bizarre, indeed. 🤦♂️
2. There are no such things as exclusively ‘homosexual acts’. If this term refers to anal/oral sex, then, spoiler alert: millions of heterosexuals engage in these acts, too, so to describe them as exclusively ‘homosexual acts’ is bizarre, indeed. Even if we accept that giving/receiving a BJ or having anal sex is a ‘homosexual act’, you’re really going to imprison someone for life for this? 🤦♂️
3. ‘Aggravated homosexuality’ has the death penalty as its punishment and is described as an offence including ‘serial offenders, same-sex rape, sex in a position of authority or procured by intimidation, sex with persons older than seventy-five, sex with the disabled and mentally ill, and homosexual acts committed by a person with a previous conviction for homosexuality.’
Ok, let’s break this down:
•‘serial offenders’ - presumably this means people who just have consenting sex on many occasions. Death? Bizarre, indeed. 🤦♂️
•‘same-sex rape’ - as with heterosexual rape, this should obviously be criminalised, but I wouldn’t support death for it.
•‘sex in a position of authority or procured by intimidation’ - in the case of a position of authority, if the other person consents to the sex, I see no issue with it. If intimidation is involved and no consent given, then this should be criminalised.
•‘sex with persons older than 75’ - lol. I see absolutely no reason to criminalise someone for having sex with anyone who is above the age of consent. If that person is 75, 85 or 105, and they consent to the sex, then to institute the death penalty for this is quite bizarre, indeed. 🤦♂️
•‘sex with the disabled and mentally ill’ - lol. If a disabled gay man or woman wants to have sex, where’s the fucking issue? 🤷♂️ Death for this? Yer having a fucking larff, aincha? 🤦♂️ Obviously, the mentally ill could be compromised when it comes to consent, so this needs sensitivity.
•‘homosexual acts committed by a person with a previous conviction for homosexuality’ - so, if someone has been convicted just once for, say, giving a BJ (which isn’t actually a ‘homosexual act’, as we’ve established there is no such thing) to his partner, and he’s caught doing it again, you kill him? Really? 🤦♂️
When you look closely at the Bill, it becomes increasingly ridiculous and barely believable that in 2024 we are criminalising people for simply having consensual adult sex. 🤦♂️
6
-
6
-
The Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Act (2023) prescribes up to 20 years in prison for ‘promotion of homosexuality’, life imprisonment for ‘homosexual acts’, and the death penalty for ‘aggravated homosexuality’.
1. How, exactly, can you ‘promote’ homosexuality? This isn’t about trying to persuade people to become gay, as if you are trying to persuade people to vote for you, or persuade people to buy a new whizz-bang, fancy-pants vibrator (ijumpjudy has just put in her order - extra batteries included 😉); that’s impossible. It’s not like you can ‘catch’ homosexuality like you can catch a virus, any more than you can ‘catch’ heterosexuality. You are either gay or you aren’t, just as you are heterosexual, or you aren’t. So, primitively prescribing 20 years imprisonment for something you either are or aren’t no matter how much ‘promoting’ is done is bizarre, indeed. 🤦♂️
2. There are no such things as exclusively ‘homosexual acts’. If this term refers to anal/oral sex, then, spoiler alert: millions of heterosexuals engage in these acts, too, so to describe them as exclusively ‘homosexual acts’ is stupid and renders the description invalid. Even if we accept that giving/receiving a BJ or having anal sex is a ‘homosexual act’, you’re really going to imprison someone for life for this? 🤦♂️
3. ‘Aggravated homosexuality’ has the death penalty as its punishment and is described as an offence including ‘serial offenders, same-sex rape, sex in a position of authority or procured by intimidation, sex with persons older than seventy-five, sex with the disabled and mentally ill, and homosexual acts committed by a person with a previous conviction for homosexuality.’
Ok, let’s break this down:
•‘serial offenders’ - presumably this means people who just have consenting sex on many occasions. Death? Don’t be silly. 🤦♂️
•‘same-sex rape’ - as with heterosexual rape, this should obviously be criminalised, but I wouldn’t support death for it.
•‘sex in a position of authority or procured by intimidation’ - in the case of a position of authority, if the other person consents to the sex, I see no issue with it. If intimidation is involved and no consent given, then this should be criminalised.
•‘sex with persons older than 75’ - lol. I see absolutely no reason to criminalise someone for having sex with anyone who is above the age of consent. If that person is 75, 85 or 105, and they consent to the sex, then to institute the death penalty for this is quite nonsensical. 🤦♂️
•‘sex with the disabled and mentally ill’ - lol. If a disabled gay man or woman wants to have sex, where’s the fucking issue? 🤷♂️ Death for this? Yer having a fucking larff, aincha? 🤦♂️ Obviously, the mentally ill could be compromised when it comes to consent, so this needs sensitivity.
•‘homosexual acts committed by a person with a previous conviction for homosexuality’ - so, if someone has been convicted just once for, say, giving a BJ (which isn’t actually a ‘homosexual act’, as we’ve established there is no such thing) to his partner, and he’s caught doing it again, you kill him? Really? 🤦♂️
When you look closely at the Bill, it becomes increasingly ridiculous and barely believable that in 2024 we are criminalising people for simply having consensual adult sex. 🤦♂️
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Whenever the topic of homophobia arises, I’m always a bit mystified. Why do certain people hate homosexuality with such a vehement passion?
Well, religion is clearly the no.1 reason as, in my experience, when questioned the vast majority (90+%) of homosexuality-haters I encounter are holy rollers who believe in this or that unverified and unverifiable invisible sky daddy. In the case of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) with their respective books written by men (anecdotally, I find men in my orbit far more likely to be homophobic than women and, tellingly, these same men are often far more forgiving of lesbianism than they are of male-on- male homosexuality), the literalist faithful are required to believe that homosexual sex is sinful and forbidden and by the letter of the holy law actually punishable by death! ( If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. ~ Leviticus 20:13).
No.2 is more than likely the classic closeted queer who just can’t accept their feelings and so actively pushes them away, for it is a truth universally acknowledged that those who express irrational homophobic sentiments are quite often repressed homosexuals themselves. Homosexual urges, when repressed out of shame or fear, can (and often are) expressed as homophobia. Freud famously called this process a “reaction formation” - the angry battle against the outward symbol of feelings that are inwardly being stifled.
No.3 is the simple lack of basic education. When you grow up in a culture where the most important text is some primitive book written by fallible men 1000s of years ago, you know you’re going to bump up against some stupid, risible opinions which cannot be logically maintained without the appeal to a putatively omnipotent, omniscient ‘God’. In the same book of the Old Testament which institutes death for homosexual acts it also says: Ye shall keep my statutes … neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon you. ~ Leviticus 19:19 As I said: stupid and risible.
I have many petty prejudices, some rational and some irrational, but hating what someone consensually does sexually isn’t one of them. Hitherto, not one person has given me a single rational reason why I should hate homosexuality. I tend to dislike people and what they do in terms of their ideas, their beliefs, their opinions, their unthinking actions which harm others, their dress-sense etc., but not something over which they have utterly no say or control, and particularly not something which causes no essential harm to another. In this debate, it’s crucial to properly distinguish between ‘offence’ and ‘harm’. You cannot be offended against your will. If you are offended, you play an active role in being offended. A potential offence is offered and you choose whether or not to take that offence. No one can be offended without their own intrinsic consent. On the other hand, you can be harmed against your will. With homosexuality, so many people utterly uninvolved with and unrelated to the given homosexuals seem to be mortally offended. I say: so what? You’re offended. Deal with it. No one is harming you here. It’s none of your business so butt-out.
Ultimately, hating homosexuality is like dissing people with a different skin colour. Pointless. Not only pointless, but utterly stupid and moronic, as no one chooses their skin colour, just as no one chooses their sexuality. But here’s the clincher for me: even if we did choose our skin colour and sexuality, it still wouldn’t bother me one iota that some random individual has a different skin colour or sexuality. The sooner we can move beyond this primitive nonsense as a species, the better. To me, being homophobic is a bit like feeling resentful of someone digging Uranus because you’re not an astronomer! 🔭
6
-
Never got the ‘hate what another human does when it comes to their sexual orientation’ memo. Makes utterly no sense. I tend to dislike people for their ideas, their beliefs, their opinions, their dress-sense, and not something over which they have utterly no say or control. It’s like dissing people with a different skin colour. Pointless. Not only pointless, but totally stupid and moronic, as no one chooses their skin colour, just as no one chooses their sexuality. But here’s the clincher for me: even if we did choose our skin colour and sexuality, it still wouldn’t bother me one iota that some random has a different skin colour or sexuality. The sooner we can move beyond this primitive nonsense as a species, the better. To me, being homophobic is a bit like feeling resentful of someone digging Uranus because you’re not an astronomer! 🔭
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Criminalising homosexuality makes about as much logical sense as criminalising heterosexuality. After all, there is precisely nothing gays do that millions of heterosexuals the world over don’t do every day. Furthermore, the latter engage in these consenting acts (rightly) without fear of criminalisation. Moreover, even if a penis up an arse is the main issue here (and it seems to be), how on Earth, in that case, does that justify lumping in all the lesbians who never have and never will have anal sex, unless they get the dildos and strap-ons out? None of it makes rational sense in the cold light of day, which is precisely why it appeals to the darkest, basest, knee-jerk instincts in humanity
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Russia, the biggest country by landmass, twice the size of Canada, the second biggest; given this, why can’t those ‘Russians’ in Ukraine just move to Russia, if they are unhappy? Ukraine is a sovereign territory. Has been since 1991. Up until 2014, it seems ethnic Russians were ok with living in Ukraine, co-existing with non-ethnic Russian Ukrainians, much like the Flemish share what we call Belgium with the Walloons. My feeling about all this, and it’s just a guess, is that even the ethnic Russians in Ukraine would be quite happy to live in a sovereign, self-governing Ukraine. My strong feeling about all this, is that since at least 2014, Russia (Putin, mainly) has stirred the pot and played on potential ethnic tensions that actually weren’t really that strong. Again, I have no proof, but my instinct, having closely observed this for nine weeks, is that this is actually about one man more than anything. Putin just couldn’t get over the ‘greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th Century’ (his words), that is, the dissolution of the USSR, and as he is about to pop his clogs, he was impelled to take his revenge for this before he does shuffle off this mortal coil. We should not underestimate just how much this really is one man’s war, and on that score, it just bespeaks how primitive we still are as a species, when we don’t have mechanisms in place to deal with these outlying, power-tripping fuckwits.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
🎶 Wabbit, wabbit, wabbit, wabbit, wabbit, wabbit, wabbit, wabbit, wabbit, wabbit, wabbit, wabbit, wabbit, wabbit, wabbit, wabbit, wabbit, wabbit, wabbit, wabbit🎵(“Rabbit” - Chas & Dave - Chinese remix 🐇)
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Putin: “But, brother, we are fellow Slavs, speak the same language, you must be with me, no?”
Ukrainian: “‘Brother’ is overstating it. Cousins, at best, is how I would put it. Yes, I speak your language, but you don’t speak mine, and no, I must go where my conscience dictates, not where you dictate. Understand this and we can get along.”
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I once visited Australia. The people were bluff, hearty and to the point. There were strongly evident, often openly-voiced, undercurrents of racism and homophobia. I was severely disappointed by the endless expanse of barren nothingness. No real mountains to speak of. When you’ve seen one beach you’ve seen them all. There was also a palpable kind of unconcealed disdain for the life of the mind - even more than in the darker corners of Blighty. I realised why so many of the best Aussies, those with any real culture , for want of a better word, leave. Humphries was one such. Too good for his birth-land, too bright, too clever, he had to get out. And now he’s checked-out. Farewell, Barry.
6
-
6
-
6
-
The biggest mistake Putin has made here was to arrogantly assume a majority of Ukrainians would simply roll over and have their stomachs tickled by the Russians as they rolled in with their tanks. This is the kind of tone-deafness you get when no one has been able to say ‘no’ to one man for 22 years. In a very real sense, the cause of this war rests squarely on Putin’s shoulders and his mad, misguided designs for a greater mother Russia largely conforming to the old USSR. This is why if Putin succeeds in subjugating Ukraine, then Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania should be very afraid. The good news for them (but not the Ukrainians) is that it looks like because of Putin’s arrogance he may be bogged down in Ukraine for years to come, and even if Russia does subjugate Ukraine, that will only be the beginning, as internal resistance to Russia will be immense. Putin’s 5 main demands: 1. Neutral Ukraine with concomitant commitment never to join NATO. 2. Ukraine disarmed. 3. Protection for Russian language in Ukraine. 4. DeNazification of Ukraine. 5. Crimea formally identified as Russian along with other parts of east Ukraine, including the Donbas … for me, these should be seriously considered by Ukraine, to save what very probably will be the utter destruction of the country and the loss of a large proportion of Ukrainians. If and when Russia can move into some kind of post-Putin democracy, then some of these things may be looked at again. Part of me thinks we should humour this nuclear-armed (blackmail? Appeasement? Perhaps) dictator until he has shuffled off this mortal coil.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The key issue for many people isn’t immigration per se (most people I know have no particular problem with strictly controlled legal immigration); it’s mass Islamic immigration that is the problem for many, including many left of centre voters. (Just this week, we have an Islamic dude wanting a Scottish island all to himself and his followers as an ‘Islamic caliphate’. Seriously, I’m old enough to remember when stories like this would be an April Fool’s joke!) As a secular agnostic, I’m constantly amazed at just how carefree western, secular, liberal democracies are when it comes to importing an ideology diametrically opposed to liberal democracy. Islam is political (‘Islam is politics or it is nothing.’ ~ Ayatollah Khomeini). It wants control of the reins. At the current rate, the UK is projected to be 17% Islamic in 2 decades. Sweden, astonishingly, is projected to be 30% Islamic by 2050. A full third of Swedes will be Muslims. With numbers like that, Europe can expect some interesting times ahead.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
All the holier than thou, sententious, double-standards pontificating on this is hilarious. Yes, Murthy is clearly a lefty. We all know this. This is going to show in his interviews, no matter how much ‘journalistic impartiality’ he’s supposed to evince. In the same way, Dan Wooton is a righty, and every time I watch anything he says on GB News, he is clearly coming at it from a rightist bias (often cringingly, embarrassingly so). And here’s the kicker: more than Murthy. Yes, Dan. Murthy may be an obvious liberal lefty, but you are even more of an intolerant righty. That makes you the hypocrite, as it’s not Murthy calling you out for bias, but vice-versa. Yvw.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
My theory about this is that the pressure to teach this at younger and younger ages is a result of the Internet. I would suggest the year before Secondary School would be appropriate to go into sex-ed in any depth. 11/12. I recall this was about the age I received it and this was pre-Internet. I would add this, though: having lived in 6 different countries, I would say that, relatively speaking, there is still a certain prudishness in this matter in the UK. Parents should have the right to withdraw their children if they want, but if you go to, say, Spain, Italy, France, Germany or the Netherlands, they are not nearly so squeamish about all this stuff as we are. Also, having the virginal Ann Widdecombe pontificating to me about matters-sexual is odd; a bit like having my Catholic priest advising me about sex!
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
All the holier-than-thou idiots in this thread are hilarious. Willoughby and Schofield were on a working assignment. They got the chance to see the coffin. They took it. They weren’t holding anyone up. Secretly, I bet most of us would, no matter what folk are saying here. If I were there on a working assignment, I repeat, a working assignment, and I could breeze past the coffin in 2 minutes as an addendum to this, instead of waiting 20 hours in a queue, I would, and I suspect most people would in these circumstances. Beckham and his ilk are exceptions, I suspect. The other thing is that Beckham wasn’t on a specific work assignment. For me, that latter fact allows you a fast track to the coffin, and if it had been offered to me I would have taken it and admitted it afterwards if a ruckus were created. I suspect the real issue here is Schofield and Willoughby being disingenuous about what they really did. The other, perhaps bigger issue, is people just want something on the pair as they don’t like Schofield. If this had just been Holly, there’d be far, far less of a ruckus here, if anything at all. The usual agenda that you always get with GB News folk. They skipped the queue. They were working there. So what? No big deal. Get over it.
6
-
I think the main reason humans find happiness such a difficult concept is that we are inherently aware of our mortality every waking moment of the day. To compound this knowledge that we die is the fact that no one knows what happens when and after we die. We have ‘faiths’ and ‘philosophies’ based on this or that ‘prophet’ but when all is said and done we’re operating in the dark. Sometimes, I look at animals and would rather be them. Walt Whitman captured this brilliantly: I think I could turn and live with animals, they are so placid and self-contain'd,
I stand and look at them long and long.
They do not sweat and whine about their condition,
They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins,
They do not make me sick discussing their duty to God,
Not one is dissatisfied, not one is demented with the mania of owning things,
Not one kneels to another, nor to his kind that lived thousands of years ago,
Not one is respectable or unhappy over the whole earth.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I prefer Bilbao to San Sebastián, I think. The latter is overrated, based on its magical setting. The city itself is just a bunch of unprepossessing apartment blocks, save for the two and a half streets and Plaza Consti. that make up the jejune Old Town. Bilbao has more heft, and it’s (also small) old core is more appealing. I have always been of the opinion, against the overwhelming tide of favourable opinion, that if you picked up San Sebastián and plonked it down 200 miles inland, it would be what it is: a rather nondescript, faceless city architecturally. San Sebastián is a city saved by its setting. Best Basque city of all, in my opinion, is the not-on-the-radar Vitoria. It’s a glorious old unspoiled ensemble with a couple of world-class plazas.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Amongst other things, Farage is back to appeal to those who have concerns about mass immigration. However, the issue for many people isn’t immigration per se (most people I know have no particular problem with strictly controlled legal immigration); it’s Islamic immigration that is the problem for many, including many left of centre voters. As a secular agnostic, I’m constantly amazed at just how carefree western, secular, liberal democracies are when it comes to importing an ideology diametrically opposed to liberal democracy. Islam is political (‘Islam is politics or it is nothing.’ ~ Ayatollah Khomeini). It wants control of the reins. At the current rate, the UK is projected to be 17% Islamic in 2 decades. Sweden, astonishingly, is projected to be 30% Islamic. A full third of Swedes will be Muslims. With numbers like that, Europe can expect some interesting times ahead.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
🎶 Rabbit, rabbit, rabbit, rabbit, rabbit, rabbit, rabbit, rabbit, rabbit, rabbit, rabbit, rabbit, rabbit, rabbit, rabbit, rabbit, rabbit, rabbit, rabbit, rabbit🎵(“Rabbit” - Chas & Dave 🐇)
🎶 Wabbit, wabbit, wabbit, wabbit, wabbit, wabbit, wabbit, wabbit, wabbit, wabbit, wabbit, wabbit, wabbit, wabbit, wabbit, wabbit, wabbit, wabbit, wabbit, wabbit🎵(Chinese remix 🐇)
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Why do so many other developed nations not have America’s baleful gun culture? Germany, the UK, Japan, for example, don’t seem to have this terrible issue with gun crime, and yet there is relative peace in terms of general society, and certainly mass killings are rare. America needs to seriously look at its Second Amendment. There are only three countries that have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms: Mexico, Guatemala, and the United States. Although Mexico and Guatemala both have a constitutional right to bear arms, the US is in a league of its own simply because it is the only country without restrictions on gun ownership in its constitution. After the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, it inspired other countries around the world to provide their citizens with the right to own guns. However, only 15 constitutions (in nine countries) ever included an explicit right to bear arms. They are Bolivia, Costa Rica, Colombia, Honduras, Nicaragua, Liberia, Guatemala, Mexico, and the US. All of those countries, excluding Mexico, the US, and Guatemala, have since rescinded the constitutional right to bear arms. So, America is the outlier here in terms of citizens’ rights to bear arms. Does it want to continue this, and put up with its horrible mass killings? Or does it want to consider repealing the Second Amendment, thereby allowing the average American citizen to breathe that much easier in the ‘land of the free’?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The first thing that strikes anyone without skin in the game of this conflict, is how easy it is to solve. The essential point is a simple one. Two peoples of roughly equal size have a claim to the same land. The solution is, obviously, to create two states side by side. However, those who do have a tendentious, non-objective point of view, namely the rabid rabbis and the mad mullahs and the perfervid priests, have served to scupper any chances of solution, obvious to everyone else. But the exclusive claims to god-given authority, made by hysterical clerics on both sides and further stoked by Armageddon-minded wacko Christians who hope to bring on the Apocalypse tout de suite (preceded by the death or conversion of all Jews), have made the situation insufferable, literally and metaphorically, and put the whole of humanity in the position of hostage to a squabble that now features the threat of nuclear conflagration. The moral of this sad, sorry tale, full of sound and fury, is that organised religion has so much to answer for, we may be here until the seas run dry and rocks melt in the hot middle-eastern sun, before it can claim any kind of alibi.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The biggest mistake Putin has made here was to arrogantly assume a majority of Ukrainians would simply roll over and have their stomachs tickled by the Russians as they rolled in with their tanks. This is the kind of tone-deafness you get when no one has been able to say ‘no’ to one man for 22 years. In a very real sense, the cause of this war rests squarely on Putin’s shoulders and his mad, misguided designs for a greater mother Russia largely conforming to the old USSR. This is why if Putin succeeds in subjugating Ukraine, then Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania should be very afraid. The good news for them (but not the Ukrainians) is that it looks like because of Putin’s arrogance he may be bogged down in Ukraine for years to come, and even if Russia does subjugate Ukraine, that will only be the beginning, as internal resistance to Russia will be immense. Putin’s 5 main demands: 1. Neutral Ukraine with concomitant commitment never to join NATO. 2. Ukraine disarmed. 3. Protection for Russian language in Ukraine. 4. DeNazification of Ukraine. 5. Crimea formally identified as Russian along with other parts of east Ukraine, including the Donbas … for me, these should be seriously considered by Ukraine, to save what very probably will be the utter destruction of the country and the loss of a large proportion of Ukrainians. If and when Russia can move into some kind of post-Putin democracy, then some of these things may be looked at again. Part of me thinks we should humour this nuclear-armed (blackmail? Appeasement? Perhaps) dictator until he has shuffled off this mortal coil.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
It’s a process. It’s a process whereby gay men and women simply gain the right to have consensual adult sex free of fear of criminalisation involving fines, imprisonment or worse, wherever they are on the planet.
The following is a timeline list of when and where homosexuality was decriminalised. This list is interesting as it gives the lie, somewhat, to the idea that decriminalising homosexuality is a wholly (or even a mainly) ‘Western thing’, so apparently feared by lube-head here. To pick some examples at random to demonstrate this: Turkey decriminalised in 1858; Japan in 1882; Taiwan in 1912; Thailand in 1956… while it was as late as 1967 in England/Wales and, remarkably, even later in the country of my birth, Scotland, in 1981. Equally remarkably, it was as late as 1993 before it was decriminalised in Washington DC, another 10 years after this before all the states had decriminalised. Added to this is the notable fact that in the list where homosexuality has never been illegal, almost every single country, without exception, is non-Western.
•Never been illegal
Aruba, Netherlands
Benin
Burkina Faso
Cambodia
Central African Republic
Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Republic of the Congo
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Christmas Island, Australia
Curaçao Curaçao, Netherlands
Djibouti
Equatorial Guinea
French Polynesia, France
Indonesia
Ivory Coast
Laos
Madagascar
Mali
Mayotte, France
Federated States of Micronesia
New Caledonia, France
Niger
North Korea
Rwanda
Sint Maarten, Netherlands
South Korea
Philippines
Vietnam
Wallis and Futuna, France
•18th Century
1791: Andorra
France Kingdom of France (includes Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Réunion, San Barthélemy, Saint Martin, and Saint Pierre and Miquelon)
Haiti Saint-Domingue (Haiti)
1793: Monaco
1794: Luxembourg
1795: Belgium
1798: Canton of Geneva, Switzerland
Ticino, Switzerland
Vaud, Switzerland
Valais, Switzerland
•19th Century
1811: Netherlands
1822: Dominican Republic
El Salvador
1830: Brazil
1832: Bolivia
1853: Argentina
1858: Turkey
1864: San Marino
1869: Suriname
1871: Guatemala
Mexico
1882: Japan
1890: Italy
Vatican City
1899: Honduras
•20th Century
1912: Taiwan
1924: Peru
1933: Denmark (includes Greenland and Faroe Islands)
1932: Poland
1934: Uruguay
1940: Iceland
1942: Switzerland
1944: Sweden
1951: Greece
Jordan
Palestine
1956: Thailand
1961: Hungary
1962: Czechoslovakia
Illinois, United States
1967: England and Wales, United Kingdom
1968: Bulgaria
East Germany
1969: Canada
West Germany
1971: Austria
Connecticut, United States
Costa Rica
Finland
1972: Colorado, United States
Oregon, United States
Norway
1973: Delaware, United States
Hawaii, United States
Malta
North Dakota, United States
1974: Massachusetts, United States
Ohio, United States
1975: East Timor
New Hampshire, United States
New Mexico, United States
South Australia
1976: Australian Capital Territory
Bahrain
California, United States
Indiana, United States
Maine, United States
Washington (state), United States
West Virginia, United States
1977: Croatia
Montenegro
Slovenia
South Dakota, United States
Vermont, United States
Wyoming, United States
1978: Guam, United States
Iowa, United States
Nebraska, United States
New Jersey, United States
1979: Cuba
Spain
1980: American, United States
New York, United States
Pennsylvania, United States
1981: Colombia
Scotland, United Kingdom
Victoria, Australia
1982: Northern Ireland, United Kingdom
1983: Guernsey, United Kingdom
Northern Mariana Islands
Northern Territory, Australia
Portugal
Wisconsin, United States
1984: New South Wales, Australia
1985: Virgin Islands, United States
1986: New Zealand
1988: Israel
1989: Falkland Islands, United Kingdom
Liechtenstein
1990: Jersey, United Kingdom
Paraguay
Western Australia
1991: Bahamas
Abkhazia
Hong Kong
Queensland, Australia
South Ossetia
Ukraine
1992: Estonia
Isle of Man, United Kingdom
Kentucky, United States
Latvia
1993: Washington, D.C. District of Columbia, United States
Gibraltar, United Kingdom
Guinea-Bissau
Republic of Ireland
Lithuania
Mongolia
Nevada Nevada, United States
Norfolk Island, Australia
Russia
1994: Kosovo
Belarus
Bermuda Bermuda, United Kingdom
Serbia
1995: Albania
Moldova
1996: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Portuguese Macau
North Macedonia
Romania
Tennessee, United States
1997: China
Ecuador
Montana, United States
Tasmania, Australia
Venezuela
1998: Cyprus Cyprus
Georgia, United States
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Republika Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Rhode Island, United States
South Africa
Tajikistan
1999: Chile
Maryland, United States
2000: Akrotiri and Dhekelia, United Kingdom
Azerbaijan
Georgia (country)
•21st Century
2001: Anguilla, United Kingdom
Arizona, United States
Bosnia and Herzegovina
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands, United Kingdom
Minnesota, United States
Montserrat, United Kingdom
Saint Helena
Pitcairn Islands, United Kingdom
Turks and Caicos Islands, United Kingdom
2002: Arkansas, United States
Transnistria
2003: Armenia
Tokelau, New Zealand
United States (nationwide)
2004: Cape Verde
2005: Marshall Islands
2007: Nepal
Vanuatu
2008: Nicaragua
Panama
2010: Fiji
2012: Lesotho
São Tomé and Príncipe
2014: Northern Cyprus
Palau
2015: Mozambique
2016: Belize
Nauru
Seychelles
2018: India
Trinidad and Tobago
2019: Botswana
2020: Gabon
2021: Angola
Bhutan
2022: Antigua and Barbuda
Barbados
Singapore
Saint Kitts and Nevis
2023: Cook Islands, New Zealand
Mauritius
2024: Dominica
Namibia
5
-
5
-
“I might be what you groomers call ‘asexual’”. (Ijumpjudyy) Wow! 😮That’s interesting, groomer! Never thought you’d reveal your hand like that, groomer. K, you don’t dig sex and because you don’t dig sex you ban consenting adults, who do dig sex, from having sex, groomer!? I fear revealing that has put the final nail in your intolerant ⚰️, groomer! 😂 👍😉 Hey, groomer! I’m proud to be a cucumber hater and not be so silly, irrational, intolerant and thick as to ban cucumbers, groomer! 🤣🥒 She also admitted this recently: “Imagine being an atheist.” Having previously denied her God credentials she scores yet another own 🥅! 🤡 😂
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Never got the hate what another human does when it comes to their sexual orientation memo. Makes utterly no sense. I tend to dislike people for their ideas, their beliefs, their opinions, their dress-sense, and not something over which they have utterly no say or control. It’s like dissing people with different skin colour. Pointless. Not only pointless, but totally stupid and moronic, as no one chooses their skin colour, just as no one chooses their sexuality. But here’s the clincher for me: even if we did choose our skin colour and sexuality, it still wouldn’t bother me one iota that some random has a different skin colour or sexuality. The sexual business of consenting adults is no one else’s business. The sooner we can move beyond this primitive nonsense as a species, the better. To me, being homophobic is a bit like feeling resentful of someone digging Uranus because you’re not an astronomer! 🔭
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
“I might be what you groomers call ‘asexual’”. (Ijumpjudyy) Wow! 😮That’s interesting, groomer! Never thought you’d reveal your hand like that, groomer. K, you don’t dig sex and because you don’t dig sex you ban consenting adults, who do dig sex, from having sex, groomer!? I fear revealing that has put the final nail in your intolerant ⚰️, groomer! 😂 👍😉 Hey, groomer! I’m proud to be a cucumber hater and not be so silly, irrational, intolerant and thick as to ban cucumbers, groomer! 🤣🥒 She also admitted this today: “Imagine being an atheist.” Having previously denied her God credentials she scores yet another own 🥅! 🤡 😂
5
-
5
-
Criminalising homosexuality makes about as much logical sense as criminalising heterosexuality. After all, there is precisely nothing gays do that millions of heterosexuals the world over don’t do every day. Furthermore, the latter engage in these consenting acts (rightly) without fear of criminalisation. Moreover, even if a penis up an arse is the main issue here (and it seems to be), how on Earth, in that case, does that justify lumping in all the lesbians who never have and never will have anal sex, unless they get the dildos and strap-ons out? None of it makes rational sense in the cold light of day, which is precisely why it appeals to the darkest, basest, knee-jerk instincts in humanity.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
It’s just about education, mainly. When people realise they have no rational basis to criminalise gay sex, it all falls apart for them. Take Jegamoron: he can’t supply a rational reason beyond “I hate the West, they let gays live, ergo, homosexuality must be wrong”, or “For the fun of it!”. Tbf, it was 1967 in England and as late as 1981 in Scotland that it was decriminalised. I can recall my dad having anti-gay views when I was a kid (although, he would’ve stopped short of criminalising gays) and years later, he’s just indifferent. Live and let live as he understands it’s none of his business. That’s all this is, ultimately: live and let live. Some are still having major issues with the ‘let live’ bit, alas.
5
-
5
-
So, why might people have a downer on homosexuality?
•It is ‘unnatural’ - All the research (both scientific and anecdotal) overwhelmingly indicates that sexuality isn’t a choice. The vast majority of us, if we are honest, will attest we were romantically/sexually attracted to others very early (and, conversely, not attracted to others) and no volitional choice, as such, was involved in this attraction. In my own case, I knew when I was about 4 that I fancied girls.
•Being gay is a ‘sin’ - This argument is just a non-starter, really, given that presumably this ‘sin’ was ordained by ‘God’, and as that ‘God’ hasn’t been verified (manmade written texts don’t count), then using the ‘it’s a sin’ argument won’t float.
•Being gay is, somehow, ‘transmissible’ - This one is ridiculous. You can’t ‘catch’ homosexuality like you can catch a virus, any more than you can ‘catch’ heterosexuality. You are either gay or you aren’t, just as you are heterosexual, or you aren’t. Or, for that matter, you are bisexual, or you aren’t. Those against homosexuality never use this one the other way: Gay people are surrounded by heterosexual culture 24/7/365. Gays are simply assumed to be heterosexual until they state that they are not. Every example, with a very few exceptions, of love & romance in our media is heterosexual. Given this saturation, you’d think all of this exposure to hetty culture might ‘turn’ gays heterosexual, but it doesn’t. It doesn’t in exactly the same way that exposing heterosexuals to gays/gay culture ‘turns’ them, because with sexuality, we just are, and from a pretty early age.
•Gays have an agenda - Of all the arguments I have heard against homosexuality, this is the only one that might be seen to hold some water, not because it’s a moral argument, as such, but because I can understand why people might not be particularly keen to have what they perceive as ‘gay issues’ shoved down their throats, for want of a better phrase. Even as someone who has zero moral issue with homosexuality, this modern-day aspect of the topic can be annoying. However, it should be pointed out, that those gays who are politically motivated represent a minuscule (<1%) rump of activists heard and seen out of all proportion to their size; meanwhile, the vast majority of gays are simply quietly living their lives unseen and unheard and bothering no one.
•What gays actually do in the bedroom is ‘disgusting’ - Well, this is clearly subjective. Museveni seems to think it’s ‘disgusting’, even though he laughably claimed he never knew what they did! In terms of criminality, this is rather simple: if you are going to criminalise consenting adults for performing ‘disgusting’ bedroom antics (i.e. anal/oral sex), then you need to apply this law consistently and criminalise the millions of consenting heterosexual adults having anal/oral sex. If this isn’t done, and heterosexuals are treated in exactly the same way by the law vis-à-vis anal/oral sex, then you can be sure this is just about irrationally criminalising a minority whose behaviours you are personally ‘disgusted’ by.
Conclusion: No one, hitherto, has given me a single, rational, credible reason as to why I should support the criminalisation of gay sex.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Act (2023) prescribes up to twenty years in prison for ‘promotion of homosexuality’, life imprisonment for ‘homosexual acts’, and the death penalty for ‘aggravated homosexuality’.
1. How, exactly, can you ‘promote’ homosexuality? This isn’t about trying to persuade people to become gay, as if you are trying to persuade people to vote for you, or persuade people to buy a new whizz-bang, fancy-pants vibrator (ijumpjudy has just put in her order - extra batteries included 😉); that’s impossible. It’s not like you can ‘catch’ homosexuality like you can catch a virus, any more than you can ‘catch’ heterosexuality. You are either gay or you aren’t, just as you are heterosexual, or you aren’t. So, primitively prescribing 20 years imprisonment for something you either are or aren’t no matter how much ‘promoting’ is done is bizarre, indeed. 🤦♂️
2. There are no such things as exclusively ‘homosexual acts’. If this term refers to anal/oral sex, then, spoiler alert: millions of heterosexuals engage in these acts, too, so to describe them as exclusively ‘homosexual acts’ is bizarre, indeed. Even if we accept that giving/receiving a BJ or having anal sex is a ‘homosexual act’, you’re really going to imprison someone for life for this? 🤦♂️
3. ‘Aggravated homosexuality’ has the death penalty as its punishment and is described as an offence including ‘serial offenders, same-sex rape, sex in a position of authority or procured by intimidation, sex with persons older than seventy-five, sex with the disabled and mentally ill, and homosexual acts committed by a person with a previous conviction for homosexuality.’
Ok, let’s break this down:
•‘serial offenders’ - presumably this means people who just have consenting sex on many occasions. Death? Bizarre, indeed. 🤦♂️
•‘same-sex rape’ - as with heterosexual rape, this should obviously be criminalised, but I wouldn’t support death for it.
•‘sex in a position of authority or procured by intimidation’ - in the case of a position of authority, if the other person consents to the sex, I see no issue with it. If intimidation is involved and no consent given, then this should be criminalised.
•‘sex with persons older than 75’ - lol. I see absolutely no reason to criminalise someone for having sex with anyone who is above the age of consent. If that person is 75, 85 or 105, and they consent to the sex, then to institute the death penalty for this is quite bizarre, indeed. 🤦♂️
•‘sex with the disabled and mentally ill’ - lol. If a disabled gay man or woman wants to have sex, where’s the fucking issue? 🤷♂️ Death for this? Yer having a fucking larff, aincha? 🤦♂️ Obviously, the mentally ill could be compromised when it comes to consent, so this needs sensitivity.
•‘homosexual acts committed by a person with a previous conviction for homosexuality’ - so, if someone has been convicted just once for, say, giving a BJ (which isn’t actually a ‘homosexual act’, as we’ve established there is no such thing) to his partner, and he’s caught doing it again, you kill him? Really? 🤦♂️
When you look closely at the Bill, it becomes increasingly ridiculous and barely believable that in 2024 we are criminalising people for simply having consensual adult sex. 🤦♂️
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@icecold9511 Germany, 1945
Japan, 1945
Syria, 1949
South Korea, 1953
Iran, 1953
Guatemala, 1954
Congo, 1960
Laos, 1960
Iraq, 1963
Brazil, 1964
British Guiana, 1964
Bolivia, 1964
Dominican Republic, 1965
Indonesia, 1965
Ghana, 1966
Greece, 1967
Cambodia, 1970
Bolivia, 1971
Chile, 1973
Australia, 1975
Portugal, 1976
Argentina, 1976
Jamaica, 1980
Turkey, 1980
Chad, 1982
Fiji, 1987
Nicaragua, 1987
Afghanistan, 1989
Panama, 1989
Bulgaria, 1990
Albania, 1991
Yugoslavia, 2000
Ecuador, 2000
Afghanistan, 2001
Venezuela, 2002
Iraq, 2003
Haiti, 2004
Libya, 2011
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@Pale Rider Peterson is a shallow thinker. He punts out the platitudes to the self-help groupies who found ‘Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus’ heavy going. Don’t take that wrong. I happen to agree with his equality of opportunity spiel, but as a previous speaker has pointed out, this is cookie-cutter crap, obvious to every man and his dog. Peterson’s jejune, embarrassing, staggeringly self-entitled proclamation that ‘I don’t think God exists; I act as if He exists’ just sums up, for me, the inherently lazy, arrogant, cracker barrel philosophy of the man, punting out patently obvious platitudes that most of us imbibed with our mother’s milk.🤓
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Why do so many other developed nations not have America’s baleful gun culture? Germany, the UK, Japan, for example, don’t seem to have this terrible issue with gun crime, and yet there is relative peace in terms of general society, and certainly mass killings are rare. America needs to seriously look at its Second Amendment. There are only three countries that have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms: Mexico, Guatemala, and the United States. Although Mexico and Guatemala both have a constitutional right to bear arms, the US is in a league of its own simply because it is the only country without restrictions on gun ownership in its constitution. After the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791 (and even then it was only militia set-ups allowed to own a gun; not the individual private citizen), it inspired other countries around the world to provide their citizens with the right to own guns. However, only 15 constitutions (in nine countries) ever included an explicit right to bear arms. They are Bolivia, Costa Rica, Colombia, Honduras, Nicaragua, Liberia, Guatemala, Mexico, and the US. All of those countries, excluding Mexico, the US, and Guatemala, have since rescinded the constitutional right to bear arms. So, America is the outlier here in terms of citizens’ rights to bear arms. Does it want to continue this, and put up with its horrible mass killings? Or does it want to consider repealing the Second Amendment, thereby allowing the average American citizen to breathe that much easier in the ‘land of the free’?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
According to official government stats, the top 5 nationalities arriving illegally into the UK via Channel boats from July 2021-June 2023 are Iran, Albania, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. What do these countries have in common? Every single one has a massive Muslim majority population. Even Albania, which I was surprised to discover is nearly 60% Muslim. In principle, I have no intrinsic issue with immigration, provided it is legal and strictly controlled. What we have here is a free-for-all. A free-for-all 99% led by Islam. Yesterday, 700+ made the trip. Imagine if the UK had better weather: 700+ would be making that trip every single day of the year! That’s well over 250,000 unregulated, undocumented people we know nothing about p/y. The UK currently has a 7% Muslim population. Current projections predict it will be 17% by 2050. By 2050 Sweden is predicted to have a 30% Muslim population; a third of Sweden will be Islamic. Interesting times. If you drop a drip of red dye into a bath full of water it doesn’t show up. If you pour a bucket of red dye into the same bath, it changes it instantly forever. There’s a lot to be said for gradualism.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
What’s interesting, and actually quite hopeful, about this whole farrago, notwithstanding the murky deceit and dodge betrayed by Johnson, is just how seriously the nation takes this. In other parts of the world, perhaps most other parts of the world, what Johnson has done would be seen as extraordinarily pettifogging in the grand scheme of things, but no, us Brits, with our sense of ‘fair play’, see this as actually very important, and for this reason: it’s about the larger principle, not the ostensible small-fry crime itself. And that gives me hope.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
As an agnostic, I have very little time for all organised religion, but the one I have least time for currently would certainly be Islam. Why? Well, quite simply, as it stands, Islam seems to be the religion in the world today that most demands respect (on pain of torture or worse) but is least likely to return that respect the other way. That said, I’m aware of dozens of Muslims in my orbit, and to a man and a woman they are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. My fear, somewhere down the line, is that these ‘moderate’ Muslims will be hijacked by the more vociferous kind when a critical mass is reached, and then all bets are off about what might ensue. However, I wouldn’t ban Islam. As a free-speech, freedom of worship advocate, I couldn’t justify banning any organised religion, just because I happen to find them all utter anathema. These are the tensions one has to put up with in a free, liberal society, I suppose.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
As an agnostic, I have very little time for all organised religion, but the one I have least time for currently would certainly be Islam. Why? Well, quite simply, as it stands, Islam seems to be the religion in the world today that most demands respect (on pain of torture or worse) but is least likely to return that respect the other way. That said, I’m aware of dozens of Muslims in my orbit, and to a man and a woman they are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. My fear, somewhere down the line, is that these ‘moderate’ Muslims will be hijacked by the more vociferous kind when a critical mass is reached, and then all bets are off about what might ensue. However, I wouldn’t ban Islam. As a free-speech, freedom of worship advocate, I couldn’t justify banning any organised religion, just because I happen to find them all utter anathema. These are the tensions one has to put up with in a free, liberal society, I suppose.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@andrewgreen5892 I would generally agree with most of that. However, as a lifelong agnostic, I have very little time for any organised religion. However, the thing that should be said is that I feel zero threat from any organised religion, bar one. If I were a public figure and publicly castigated Jesus, or Moses, or Krishna, or Buddha, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it’s very likely nothing would happen to me. If I publicly slagged off Muhammad, it’s quite likely there’d be a backlash and I’d be watching my back for the rest of my life. That’s the difference. Just ask Salman Rushdie or the Batley teacher who, btw, didn’t even criticise Muhammad; he just showed a damn picture! Imagine living in a society where certain people are so offended by a cartoon, they threaten death to the person who showed it! If certain people are so ‘offended’ by a cartoon, then it’s time to question the belief, not the cartoon. It seems Islam is so trigger-sensitive it can’t take honest criticism, when it’s just a bunch of manmade ideas like all the rest. Never let anyone tell you it’s ‘racist’ or a ‘hate-crime’ to criticise Islam. Islam is a belief-system held by people of multifarious races. Islam seems to think it’s entitled to a free pass when it comes to scrutiny. If Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Spaghettiism, etc. are subject to criticism, then Islam is too.
5
-
5
-
The first thing that strikes anyone without skin in the game of this conflict, is how easy it is to solve. The essential point is a simple one: two peoples of roughly equal size have a claim to the same land. The solution is, obviously, to create two States side by side. However, those who do have a tendentious, non-objective point of view, namely the rabid rabbis and the mad mullahs and the perfervid priests, have served to scupper any chances of solution, obvious to everyone else. But the exclusive claims to god-given authority, made by hysterical clerics on both sides and further stoked by Armageddon-minded wacko Christians who hope to bring on the Apocalypse tout de suite (preceded by the death or conversion of all Jews), have made the situation insufferable, literally and metaphorically, and put the whole of humanity in the position of hostage to a squabble that now features the threat of nuclear conflagration. The moral of this sad, sorry tale, full of sound and fury, is that organised religion has so much to answer for, we may be here until the seas run dry and rocks melt in the hot middle-eastern sun, before it can claim any kind of alibi.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Putin: “But, brother, we are fellow Slavs, speak the same language, you must be with me, no?”
Ukrainian: “‘Brother’ is overstating it. Cousins, at best, is how I would put it. Yes, I speak your language, but you don’t speak mine, and no, I must go where my conscience dictates, not where you dictate. Understand this and we can get along.”
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
And all this nonsense because men decided to draw lines on maps to arbitrarily designate this area as against that area. Never got nationalism, which is essentially just tribalism on steroids that requires you to put your societal overlords’ agendas over your own. For one thing no one has any say where they are born so to take some kind of weird, unearned pride in a random accident of birth is irrational. For another thing, we are artificially programmed to believe that we are to have more loyalty to anyone else that was born in the same artificial territory as we are, but again this is just irrational and stupid, for human beings are incredibly complex and automatically liking and feeling solidarity with this or that human solely according to the idea that they happened to be plopped out by their mother in the same spot on Earth is a moronic notion when really considered. I like/dislike human beings for a whole host of reasons, their opinions, their ideas, their dress sense, the way they treat others etc. but the idea that I should like them and feel loyalty to them on a random accident of birth, something over which none of us have any say, isn’t (and shouldn’t be) on my radar.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@agungkrisna7426 While I fully uphold the territorial rights of Ukraine and their desire to win back Crimea and east Ukraine in general, it has to be borne in mind here that Putin is an old USSR has-been having a last hurrah, a final swing before he pops his brothel creepers. From his point of view, the old Russian/Soviet Empire point of view, these parts of Ukraine are indeed Russian. Part of me feels that a way to go here, to save Ukraine more trouble, and the rest of the world potential trouble, is to agree to let Putin’s Russia occupy these bits until Putin departs the scene. I kind of think this is one man’s fantasy project and we should maybe humour him in his dotage, then Ukraine can have Crimea and Donbas back and exist as the full, self-governing sovereign nation it was before 2014. I know this smacks of appeasement, but for a quiet life … for now?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
In the great GOAT debate, just for the record, Pelé didn’t officially score 1,283 goals. Pelé did score 1,283 goals, but 526 goals came in unofficial friendlies and tour games. He even counted games he played for the Sixth Coast Guard in the military competition. He officially scored 757 goals in 812 games. Moreover, strictly speaking, Pelé didn’t really ‘win’ 3 World Cups; he won 2 and a bit. Yes, he was a member of three World Cup-winning teams, but he sat out the large majority of the 1962 World Cup. All that said, he was still a terrific player, right up there in my top 5. Picking a number 1 is always an invidious task, and always depends on where and when you were born, but if I had to, yes, I’d probably pick Pelé. Just. However, if Mbappé stays healthy and motivated, I wouldn’t be surprised to be sitting here saying he’s the GOAT in 10 years’ time! ⚽️
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
You need to throw away your shampoo, soap, pizza, ice cream, detergent, chocolate, deodorant, toothpaste, crisps, noodles and bread to name just some items, if you’re going to put your money where your mouth is.😉
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@lgnobil Oh, don’t get me wrong, I have my moments of joy and happiness and contentment, but let’s be brutally honest about this: for the vast majority of human beings who have ever lived life has been mainly an interesting anxiety trip full of worry and care; I hesitate to be as bleak as Thomas Hobbes (“solitary, nasty, poor, brutish and short”) but he wasn’t far wrong. All that said, I’m actually an agnostic so I don’t 100% rule out the idea of an afterlife and perhaps a divinity shaping our ends, but 6 days out of 7, if I’m honest, I’m essentially an atheist.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@heyilikeair8521 Yeah, but as an agnostic, I feel zero threat from all religions, bar one: Islam. If I slag off Jesus, Krishna, Moses, Buddha or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, very likely nothing will happen. If I suggest Islam is pile of manmade poo, I could be watching my back for the rest of my life. That is the difference. Just ask Salman Rushdie or the Batley teacher still in hiding. And for what? Showing a cartoon. I repeat, showing a damn cartoon! When an ideology is so trigger-sensitive it can’t cope with cartoons then it’s surely time to question the ideology, not the cartoon.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The first thing that strikes anyone without skin in the game of this conflict, is how easy it is to solve. The essential point is a simple one. Two peoples of roughly equal size have a claim to the same land. The solution is, obviously, to create two states side by side. However, those who do have a tendentious, non-objective point of view, namely the rabid rabbis and the mad mullahs and the perfervid priests, have served to scupper any chances of solution, obvious to everyone else. But the exclusive claims to god-given authority, made by hysterical clerics on both sides and further stoked by Armageddon-minded wacko Christians who hope to bring on the Apocalypse tout de suite (preceded by the death or conversion of all Jews), have made the situation insufferable, literally and metaphorically, and put the whole of humanity in the position of hostage to a squabble that now features the threat of nuclear conflagration. The moral of this sad, sorry tale, full of sound and fury, is that organised religion has so much to answer for, we may be here until the seas run dry and rocks melt in the hot middle-eastern sun, before it can claim any kind of alibi.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
As ever on the Internet, this debate ends up being a slanging match between the Greta gang and the conservative right. As someone neither particularly politically left nor right it’s too polarised, too political and too tribal for my liking. The Greta gang are convinced they are right and the conservative manmade climate change deniers are equally convinced they are right. Very off-putting and I’m not enamoured of either side. As ever with these things, the truth will lie somewhere in the quiet middle and not at the noisy hectoring extremes. The planet is warming. Fact. Humans (according to the overwhelming scientific consensus) are the principal cause of this warming over the past couple of centuries through fossil fuel burning. Now, given this, and given the likely consequences, we have to collectively decide whether we want to continue on this trajectory or not. For me, given the data, and given the projected consequences contingent upon that data, it makes utter sense to phase out fossil fuels. With this caveat: we must do it sensibly. They will be needed for some time to come as the transition to renewables is made. Who knows? Given that we are currently in an interglacial period, 500 years down the line when we have stopped using fossil fuels, the planet might start a rapid cooling trend leading to that ever-promised next Ice Age, and there might be a desperate clamour to start burning fossil fuels as quickly as possible!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
⛄️ Crazy stuff! If this gets much worse they may have to alter the State names accordingly: could soon be seeing ‘Blew Jersey’, ‘Thawaii’, ‘Georjackfrost’, ‘Pennsylweathervania’, ‘Kansice’, ‘Massachillsetts’, ‘Califognia’, ‘New Hampshiver’, ‘Wicesconsin’, ‘Texice’, ‘Mittensota’, ‘Windiana’, ‘Buryland’, ‘Frozen Riverginia’, ‘Godforsakentucky’, ‘Connecticold’, ‘Flurryda’, ‘Slideaho’, ‘Snowshoe York’, ‘Iowhiteout’, ‘Michighandwarmers’, ‘Tennessleet’, ‘New Mexicool’, ‘Alaskia’, ‘Chillinois’, ‘Rhode Iceland’, ‘Mainedeer’, ‘North/South Dacoata’, ‘Coolorado’, ‘Rawest Virginia’, ‘Wysnowing’, ‘Uthaw’, ‘North/South Barrelina’, ‘Arizsnowa’, ‘Nevada’ - no change needed as already means ‘snowy mountains’, ‘Montanavalanche’, ‘Shivermont’, ‘Missfury’, ‘Delaglare’, ‘Starkansas’, ‘Thawregon’, ‘Oklabomba’, ‘Washingtoboggan’, ‘Squallabama’, ‘Nebbbrrrraska’, ‘Snowhio’, ‘Louicyana’ and ‘Missiceslippy’! 🥶
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@tastypymp1287 Never got the “hate what another human does when it comes to their sexual preferences” memo. Makes utterly no sense. I tend to dislike people for their ideas, their beliefs, their opinions, their dress-sense, and not something over which they have utterly no say or control. It’s like dissing people with different skin colour. Pointless. Not only pointless, but utterly stupid and moronic, as no one chooses their skin colour, just as no one chooses their sexuality. But here’s the clincher for me: even if we did choose our skin colour and sexuality, it still wouldn’t bother me one iota that some random has a different skin colour or sexuality to me. The sooner we can move beyond this primitive nonsense as a species, the better. To me, being homophobic is a bit like feeling resentful of someone digging Uranus because you’re not an astronomer! 🔭 👈My argument.
Where’s yours? 🤔🤡
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
“You know that most cases of FGM are consensual, right? Many people are raised in environments where this practice is normalised, so they don’t see any issue with it. They consent to it.” (Jegamespeed5399, aka ‘JayBits’)🤦♂️
Don’t be silly, son. Do you honestly think 12 year old girls in their right minds are going to willingly consent to having their genitals lopped off? That admission alone demonstrates where you are at. 🤦♂️Can you not think for yourself, for once, dude? I suggest to you, aged 12, that we chop off your cock for no reason. Do you consent to this? 🤦♂️
“Listen, hun, after school today me and your mother are going to take you to have a completely unnecessary medical procedure involving having your clitoris hacked off thereby leading to your being unable to have sexual pleasure ever and leading to the following possible complications:”
•severe pain
•excessive bleeding (haemorrhage)
•genital tissue swelling
•fever
•infections e.g., tetanus
•urinary problems
•wound healing problems
•injury to surrounding genital tissue
•shock
•vaginal problems (discharge, itching, bacterial vaginosis and other infections)
menstrual problems (painful menstruations, difficulty in passing menstrual blood, etc.)
•scar tissue and keloid
•sexual problems (pain during intercourse, decreased satisfaction)
•increased risk of childbirth complications (difficult delivery, excessive bleeding, caesarean section, need to resuscitate the baby, etc.) and newborn deaths
•need for later surgeries: for example, the sealing or narrowing of the vaginal opening (type 3) may lead to the practice of cutting open the sealed vagina later to allow for sexual intercourse and childbirth (deinfibulation). Sometimes genital tissue is stitched again several times, including after childbirth, hence the woman goes through repeated opening and closing procedures, further increasing both immediate and long-term risks
•psychological problems (depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, low self-esteem, etc.)
•death
“Now, darling, would you like to consent to this completely unnecessary procedure?” 🤦♂️
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Act (2023) prescribes up to twenty years in prison for ‘promotion of homosexuality’, life imprisonment for ‘homosexual acts’, and the death penalty for ‘aggravated homosexuality’.
1. How, exactly, can you ‘promote’ homosexuality? This isn’t about trying to persuade people to become gay, as if you are trying to persuade people to vote for you, or persuade people to buy a new whizz-bang, fancy-pants vibrator (ijumpjudy has just put in her order - extra batteries included 😉); that’s impossible. It’s not like you can ‘catch’ homosexuality like you can catch a virus, any more than you can ‘catch’ heterosexuality. You are either gay or you aren’t, just as you are heterosexual, or you aren’t. So, primitively prescribing 20 years imprisonment for something you either are or aren’t no matter how much ‘promoting’ is done is bizarre, indeed. 🤦♂️
2. There are no such things as exclusively ‘homosexual acts’. If this term refers to anal/oral sex, then, spoiler alert: millions of heterosexuals engage in these acts, too, so to describe them as exclusively ‘homosexual acts’ is stupid and renders the description invalid. Even if we accept that giving/receiving a BJ or having anal sex is a ‘homosexual act’, you’re really going to imprison someone for life for this? 🤦♂️
3. ‘Aggravated homosexuality’ has the death penalty as its punishment and is described as an offence including ‘serial offenders, same-sex rape, sex in a position of authority or procured by intimidation, sex with persons older than seventy-five, sex with the disabled and mentally ill, and homosexual acts committed by a person with a previous conviction for homosexuality.’
Ok, let’s break this down:
•‘serial offenders’ - presumably this means people who just have consenting sex on many occasions. Death? Don’t be silly. 🤦♂️
•‘same-sex rape’ - as with heterosexual rape, this should obviously be criminalised, but I wouldn’t support death for it.
•‘sex in a position of authority or procured by intimidation’ - in the case of a position of authority, if the other person consents to the sex, I see no issue with it. If intimidation is involved and no consent given, then this should be criminalised.
•‘sex with persons older than 75’ - lol. I see absolutely no reason to criminalise someone for having sex with anyone who is above the age of consent. If that person is 75, 85 or 105, and they consent to the sex, then to institute the death penalty for this is quite nonsensical. 🤦♂️
•‘sex with the disabled and mentally ill’ - lol. If a disabled gay man or woman wants to have sex, where’s the fucking issue? 🤷♂️ Death for this? Yer having a fucking larff, aincha? 🤦♂️ Obviously, the mentally ill could be compromised when it comes to consent, so this needs sensitivity.
•‘homosexual acts committed by a person with a previous conviction for homosexuality’ - so, if someone has been convicted just once for, say, giving a BJ (which isn’t actually a ‘homosexual act’, as we’ve established there is no such thing) to his partner, and he’s caught doing it again, you kill him? Really? 🤦♂️
When you look closely at the Bill, it becomes increasingly ridiculous and barely believable that in 2024 we are criminalising people for simply having consensual adult sex. 🤦♂️
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Never got the hate what another human does when it comes to their sexual orientation memo. Makes utterly no sense. I tend to dislike people for their ideas, their beliefs, their opinions, their dress-sense, and not something over which they have utterly no say or control. It’s like dissing people with different skin colour. Pointless. Not only pointless, but totally stupid and moronic, as no one chooses their skin colour, just as no one chooses their sexuality. But here’s the clincher for me: even if we did choose our skin colour and sexuality, it still wouldn’t bother me one iota that some random has a different skin colour or sexuality. The sooner we can move beyond this primitive nonsense as a species, the better. To me, being homophobic is a bit like feeling resentful of someone digging Uranus because you’re not an astronomer! 🔭
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Act (2023) prescribes up to twenty years in prison for ‘promotion of homosexuality’, life imprisonment for ‘homosexual acts’, and the death penalty for ‘aggravated homosexuality’.
1. How, exactly, can you ‘promote’ homosexuality? This isn’t about trying to persuade people to become gay, as if you are trying to persuade people to vote for you, or persuade people to buy a new whizz-bang, fancy-pants vibrator (ijumpjudy has just put in her order - extra batteries included 😉); that’s impossible. It’s not like you can ‘catch’ homosexuality like you can catch a virus, any more than you can ‘catch’ heterosexuality. You are either gay or you aren’t, just as you are heterosexual, or you aren’t. So, primitively prescribing 20 years imprisonment for something you either are or aren’t no matter how much ‘promoting’ is done is bizarre, indeed. 🤦♂️
2. There are no such things as exclusively ‘homosexual acts’. If this term refers to anal/oral sex, then, spoiler alert: millions of heterosexuals engage in these acts, too, so to describe them as exclusively ‘homosexual acts’ makes zero sense. Even if we accept that giving/receiving a BJ or having anal sex is a ‘homosexual act’, you’re really going to imprison someone for life for this? 🤦♂️
3. ‘Aggravated homosexuality’ has the death penalty as its punishment and is described as an offence including ‘serial offenders, same-sex rape, sex in a position of authority or procured by intimidation, sex with persons older than seventy-five, sex with the disabled and mentally ill, and homosexual acts committed by a person with a previous conviction for homosexuality.’
Ok, let’s break this down:
•‘serial offenders’ - presumably this means people who just have consenting sex on many occasions. Death for this? 🤦♂️
•‘same-sex rape’ - as with heterosexual rape, this should obviously be criminalised, but I wouldn’t support death for it.
•‘sex in a position of authority or procured by intimidation’ - in the case of a position of authority, if the other person consents to the sex, I see no issue with it. If intimidation is involved and no consent given, then this should be criminalised.
•‘sex with persons older than 75’ - lol. I see absolutely no reason to criminalise someone for having sex with anyone who is above the age of consent. If that person is 75, 85 or 105, and they consent to the sex, then to institute the death penalty for this is hilariously irrational. 🤦♂️
•‘sex with the disabled and mentally ill’ - lol. If a disabled gay man or woman wants to have sex, where’s the fucking issue? 🤷♂️ Death for this? Yer having a fucking larff, aincha? 🤦♂️ Obviously, the mentally ill could be compromised when it comes to consent, so this needs sensitivity.
•‘homosexual acts committed by a person with a previous conviction for homosexuality’ - so, if someone has been convicted just once for, say, giving a BJ (which isn’t actually a ‘homosexual act’, as we’ve established there is no such thing) to his partner, and he’s caught doing it again, you kill him? Really? 🤦♂️
When you look closely at the Bill, it becomes increasingly ridiculous and barely believable that in 2024 we are criminalising people for simply having consensual adult sex. 🤦♂️
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
A big part of it could be hardwired and selected for in evolutionary terms, alas. In the way we’ve been selected to fear snakes, for example. Gays, obviously, tend not to reproduce, so having gays in your tribe was counterproductive to the continuation of that tribe. Therefore, stigma, then hate occurs towards them as they are not continuing the tribe. If it is hardwired, it’s going to be extremely difficult to erase it. All this is not to say that humans dig just a good old irrational hate target and gays are an easy target. The main reason I’m so passionate about this stuff, as a hetty, is that my brother in particular has been on the receiving end of brutal violence just for being gay. Being who he is.
4
-
4
-
4
-
It’s a process. It’s a process whereby gay men and women simply gain the right to have consensual adult sex free of fear of criminalisation involving fines, imprisonment or worse, wherever they are on the planet.
The following is a timeline list of when and where homosexuality was decriminalised. This list is interesting as it gives the lie, somewhat, to the idea that decriminalising homosexuality is a wholly (or even a mainly) ‘Western thing’, so apparently feared by lube-head here. To pick some examples at random to demonstrate this: Turkey decriminalised in 1858; Japan in 1882; Taiwan in 1912; Thailand in 1956… while it was as late as 1967 in England/Wales and, remarkably, even later in the country of my birth, Scotland, in 1981. Equally remarkably, it was as late as 1993 before it was decriminalised in Washington DC, another 10 years after this before all the states had decriminalised. Added to this is the notable fact that in the list where homosexuality has never been illegal, almost every single country, without exception, is non-Western.
•Never been illegal
Aruba, Netherlands
Benin
Burkina Faso
Cambodia
Central African Republic
Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Republic of the Congo
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Christmas Island, Australia
Curaçao Curaçao, Netherlands
Djibouti
Equatorial Guinea
French Polynesia, France
Indonesia
Ivory Coast
Laos
Madagascar
Mali
Mayotte, France
Federated States of Micronesia
New Caledonia, France
Niger
North Korea
Rwanda
Sint Maarten, Netherlands
South Korea
Philippines
Vietnam
Wallis and Futuna, France
•18th Century
1791: Andorra
France Kingdom of France (includes Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Réunion, San Barthélemy, Saint Martin, and Saint Pierre and Miquelon)
Haiti Saint-Domingue (Haiti)
1793: Monaco
1794: Luxembourg
1795: Belgium
1798: Canton of Geneva, Switzerland
Ticino, Switzerland
Vaud, Switzerland
Valais, Switzerland
•19th Century
1811: Netherlands
1822: Dominican Republic
El Salvador
1830: Brazil
1832: Bolivia
1853: Argentina
1858: Turkey
1864: San Marino
1869: Suriname
1871: Guatemala
Mexico
1882: Japan
1890: Italy
Vatican City
1899: Honduras
•20th Century
1912: Taiwan
1924: Peru
1933: Denmark (includes Greenland and Faroe Islands)
1932: Poland
1934: Uruguay
1940: Iceland
1942: Switzerland
1944: Sweden
1951: Greece
Jordan
Palestine
1956: Thailand
1961: Hungary
1962: Czechoslovakia
Illinois, United States
1967: England and Wales, United Kingdom
1968: Bulgaria
East Germany
1969: Canada
West Germany
1971: Austria
Connecticut, United States
Costa Rica
Finland
1972: Colorado, United States
Oregon, United States
Norway
1973: Delaware, United States
Hawaii, United States
Malta
North Dakota, United States
1974: Massachusetts, United States
Ohio, United States
1975: East Timor
New Hampshire, United States
New Mexico, United States
South Australia
1976: Australian Capital Territory
Bahrain
California, United States
Indiana, United States
Maine, United States
Washington (state), United States
West Virginia, United States
1977: Croatia
Montenegro
Slovenia
South Dakota, United States
Vermont, United States
Wyoming, United States
1978: Guam, United States
Iowa, United States
Nebraska, United States
New Jersey, United States
1979: Cuba
Spain
1980: American, United States
New York, United States
Pennsylvania, United States
1981: Colombia
Scotland, United Kingdom
Victoria, Australia
1982: Northern Ireland, United Kingdom
1983: Guernsey, United Kingdom
Northern Mariana Islands
Northern Territory, Australia
Portugal
Wisconsin, United States
1984: New South Wales, Australia
1985: Virgin Islands, United States
1986: New Zealand
1988: Israel
1989: Falkland Islands, United Kingdom
Liechtenstein
1990: Jersey, United Kingdom
Paraguay
Western Australia
1991: Bahamas
Abkhazia
Hong Kong
Queensland, Australia
South Ossetia
Ukraine
1992: Estonia
Isle of Man, United Kingdom
Kentucky, United States
Latvia
1993: Washington, D.C. District of Columbia, United States
Gibraltar, United Kingdom
Guinea-Bissau
Republic of Ireland
Lithuania
Mongolia
Nevada Nevada, United States
Norfolk Island, Australia
Russia
1994: Kosovo
Belarus
Bermuda Bermuda, United Kingdom
Serbia
1995: Albania
Moldova
1996: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Portuguese Macau
North Macedonia
Romania
Tennessee, United States
1997: China
Ecuador
Montana, United States
Tasmania, Australia
Venezuela
1998: Cyprus Cyprus
Georgia, United States
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Republika Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Rhode Island, United States
South Africa
Tajikistan
1999: Chile
Maryland, United States
2000: Akrotiri and Dhekelia, United Kingdom
Azerbaijan
Georgia (country)
•21st Century
2001: Anguilla, United Kingdom
Arizona, United States
Bosnia and Herzegovina
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands, United Kingdom
Minnesota, United States
Montserrat, United Kingdom
Saint Helena
Pitcairn Islands, United Kingdom
Turks and Caicos Islands, United Kingdom
2002: Arkansas, United States
Transnistria
2003: Armenia
Tokelau, New Zealand
United States (nationwide)
2004: Cape Verde
2005: Marshall Islands
2007: Nepal
Vanuatu
2008: Nicaragua
Panama
2010: Fiji
2012: Lesotho
São Tomé and Príncipe
2014: Northern Cyprus
Palau
2015: Mozambique
2016: Belize
Nauru
Seychelles
2018: India
Trinidad and Tobago
2019: Botswana
2020: Gabon
2021: Angola
Bhutan
2022: Antigua and Barbuda
Barbados
Singapore
Saint Kitts and Nevis
2023: Cook Islands, New Zealand
Mauritius
2024: Dominica
Namibia
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Act (2023) prescribes up to twenty years in prison for ‘promotion of homosexuality’, life imprisonment for ‘homosexual acts’, and the death penalty for ‘aggravated homosexuality’.
1. How, exactly, can you ‘promote’ homosexuality? This isn’t about trying to persuade people to become gay, as if you are trying to persuade people to vote for you, or persuade people to buy a new whizz-bang, fancy-pants vibrator (ijumpjudy has just put in her order - extra batteries included 😉); that’s impossible. It’s not like you can ‘catch’ homosexuality like you can catch a virus, any more than you can ‘catch’ heterosexuality. You are either gay or you aren’t, just as you are heterosexual, or you aren’t. So, primitively prescribing 20 years imprisonment for something you either are or aren’t no matter how much ‘promoting’ is done is bizarre, indeed. 🤦♂️
2. There are no such things as exclusively ‘homosexual acts’. If this term refers to anal/oral sex, then, spoiler alert: millions of heterosexuals engage in these acts, too, so to describe them as exclusively ‘homosexual acts’ is stupid and renders the description invalid. Even if we accept that giving/receiving a BJ or having anal sex is a ‘homosexual act’, you’re really going to imprison someone for life for this? 🤦♂️
3. ‘Aggravated homosexuality’ has the death penalty as its punishment and is described as an offence including ‘serial offenders, same-sex rape, sex in a position of authority or procured by intimidation, sex with persons older than seventy-five, sex with the disabled and mentally ill, and homosexual acts committed by a person with a previous conviction for homosexuality.’
Ok, let’s break this down:
•‘serial offenders’ - presumably this means people who just have consenting sex on many occasions. Death? Don’t be silly. 🤦♂️
•‘same-sex rape’ - as with heterosexual rape, this should obviously be criminalised, but I wouldn’t support death for it.
•‘sex in a position of authority or procured by intimidation’ - in the case of a position of authority, if the other person consents to the sex, I see no issue with it. If intimidation is involved and no consent given, then this should be criminalised.
•‘sex with persons older than 75’ - lol. I see absolutely no reason to criminalise someone for having sex with anyone who is above the age of consent. If that person is 75, 85 or 105, and they consent to the sex, then to institute the death penalty for this is quite nonsensical. 🤦♂️
•‘sex with the disabled and mentally ill’ - lol. If a disabled gay man or woman wants to have sex, where’s the fucking issue? 🤷♂️ Death for this? Yer having a fucking larff, aincha? 🤦♂️ Obviously, the mentally ill could be compromised when it comes to consent, so this needs sensitivity.
•‘homosexual acts committed by a person with a previous conviction for homosexuality’ - so, if someone has been convicted just once for, say, giving a BJ (which isn’t actually a ‘homosexual act’, as we’ve established there is no such thing) to his partner, and he’s caught doing it again, you kill him? Really? 🤦♂️
When you look closely at the Bill, it becomes increasingly ridiculous and barely believable that in 2024 we are criminalising people for simply having consensual adult sex. 🤦♂️
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@spunkywarrior777 Thanks for a sensible, well-thought out reply. 👍 I’ve thought quite a bit about this topic over the years, as although I’m not homosexual, I have gay close family members who have experienced quite dreadful discrimination. For what it’s worth, here’s my distillation of the subject as to why some people hate homosexuality:
Well, religion is clearly the no.1 reason as, in my experience, when questioned the vast majority (90+%) of homosexuality-haters I encounter are holy rollers who believe in this or that unverified and unverifiable invisible sky daddy. In the case of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) with their respective books written by men (anecdotally, I find men in my orbit far more likely to be homophobic than women and, tellingly, these same men are often far more forgiving of lesbianism than they are of male-on-male homosexuality), the literalist faithful are required to believe that homosexual sex is sinful and forbidden and by the letter of the holy law actually punishable by death! ( If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. ~ Leviticus 20:13).
No.2 is more than likely the classic closeted gay who just can’t accept their feelings and so actively pushes them away, for it is a truth universally acknowledged that those who express irrational homophobic sentiments are quite often repressed homosexuals themselves. Homosexual urges, when repressed out of shame or fear, can (and often are) expressed as homophobia. Freud famously called this process a “reaction formation” - the angry battle against the outward symbol of feelings that are inwardly being stifled.
No.3 is the simple lack of basic education. When you grow up in a culture where the most important text is some primitive book written by fallible men 1000s of years ago, you know you’re going to bump up against some stupid, risible opinions which cannot be logically maintained without the appeal to a putatively omnipotent, omniscient ‘God’. In the same book of the Old Testament which institutes death for homosexual acts it also says: Ye shall keep my statutes … neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon you. ~ Leviticus 19:19 As I said: stupid and risible.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
It’s a process. It’s a process whereby gay men and women simply gain the right to have consensual adult sex free from fear of criminalisation involving fines, imprisonment or worse, wherever they are on the planet.
The following is a timeline list of when and where homosexuality was decriminalised. This list is interesting as it gives the lie, somewhat, to the idea that decriminalising homosexuality is a wholly (or even a mainly) ‘Western thing’, so apparently feared by lube-head here. To pick some examples at random to demonstrate this: Turkey decriminalised in 1858; Japan in 1882; Taiwan in 1912; Thailand in 1956… while it was as late as 1967 in England/Wales and, remarkably, even later in the country of my birth, Scotland, in 1981. Equally remarkably, it was as late as 1993 before it was decriminalised in Washington DC, another 10 years after this before all the states had decriminalised. Added to this is the notable fact that in the list where homosexuality has never been illegal, almost every single country, without exception, is non-Western.
•Never been illegal
Aruba, Netherlands
Benin
Burkina Faso
Cambodia
Central African Republic
Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Republic of the Congo
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Christmas Island, Australia
Curaçao Curaçao, Netherlands
Djibouti
Equatorial Guinea
French Polynesia, France
Indonesia
Ivory Coast
Laos
Madagascar
Mali
Mayotte, France
Federated States of Micronesia
New Caledonia, France
Niger
North Korea
Rwanda
Sint Maarten, Netherlands
South Korea
Philippines
Vietnam
Wallis and Futuna, France
•18th Century
1791: Andorra
France Kingdom of France (includes Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Réunion, San Barthélemy, Saint Martin, and Saint Pierre and Miquelon)
Haiti Saint-Domingue (Haiti)
1793: Monaco
1794: Luxembourg
1795: Belgium
1798: Canton of Geneva, Switzerland
Ticino, Switzerland
Vaud, Switzerland
Valais, Switzerland
•19th Century
1811: Netherlands
1822: Dominican Republic
El Salvador
1830: Brazil
1832: Bolivia
1853: Argentina
1858: Turkey
1864: San Marino
1869: Suriname
1871: Guatemala
Mexico
1882: Japan
1890: Italy
Vatican City
1899: Honduras
•20th Century
1912: Taiwan
1924: Peru
1933: Denmark (includes Greenland and Faroe Islands)
1932: Poland
1934: Uruguay
1940: Iceland
1942: Switzerland
1944: Sweden
1951: Greece
Jordan
Palestine
1956: Thailand
1961: Hungary
1962: Czechoslovakia
Illinois, United States
1967: England and Wales, United Kingdom
1968: Bulgaria
East Germany
1969: Canada
West Germany
1971: Austria
Connecticut, United States
Costa Rica
Finland
1972: Colorado, United States
Oregon, United States
Norway
1973: Delaware, United States
Hawaii, United States
Malta
North Dakota, United States
1974: Massachusetts, United States
Ohio, United States
1975: East Timor
New Hampshire, United States
New Mexico, United States
South Australia
1976: Australian Capital Territory
Bahrain
California, United States
Indiana, United States
Maine, United States
Washington (state), United States
West Virginia, United States
1977: Croatia
Montenegro
Slovenia
South Dakota, United States
Vermont, United States
Wyoming, United States
1978: Guam, United States
Iowa, United States
Nebraska, United States
New Jersey, United States
1979: Cuba
Spain
1980: American, United States
New York, United States
Pennsylvania, United States
1981: Colombia
Scotland, United Kingdom
Victoria, Australia
1982: Northern Ireland, United Kingdom
1983: Guernsey, United Kingdom
Northern Mariana Islands
Northern Territory, Australia
Portugal
Wisconsin, United States
1984: New South Wales, Australia
1985: Virgin Islands, United States
1986: New Zealand
1988: Israel
1989: Falkland Islands, United Kingdom
Liechtenstein
1990: Jersey, United Kingdom
Paraguay
Western Australia
1991: Bahamas
Abkhazia
Hong Kong
Queensland, Australia
South Ossetia
Ukraine
1992: Estonia
Isle of Man, United Kingdom
Kentucky, United States
Latvia
1993: Washington, D.C. District of Columbia, United States
Gibraltar, United Kingdom
Guinea-Bissau
Republic of Ireland
Lithuania
Mongolia
Nevada Nevada, United States
Norfolk Island, Australia
Russia
1994: Kosovo
Belarus
Bermuda Bermuda, United Kingdom
Serbia
1995: Albania
Moldova
1996: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Portuguese Macau
North Macedonia
Romania
Tennessee, United States
1997: China
Ecuador
Montana, United States
Tasmania, Australia
Venezuela
1998: Cyprus Cyprus
Georgia, United States
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Republika Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Rhode Island, United States
South Africa
Tajikistan
1999: Chile
Maryland, United States
2000: Akrotiri and Dhekelia, United Kingdom
Azerbaijan
Georgia (country)
•21st Century
2001: Anguilla, United Kingdom
Arizona, United States
Bosnia and Herzegovina
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands, United Kingdom
Minnesota, United States
Montserrat, United Kingdom
Saint Helena
Pitcairn Islands, United Kingdom
Turks and Caicos Islands, United Kingdom
2002: Arkansas, United States
Transnistria
2003: Armenia
Tokelau, New Zealand
United States (nationwide)
2004: Cape Verde
2005: Marshall Islands
2007: Nepal
Vanuatu
2008: Nicaragua
Panama
2010: Fiji
2012: Lesotho
São Tomé and Príncipe
2014: Northern Cyprus
Palau
2015: Mozambique
2016: Belize
Nauru
Seychelles
2018: India
Trinidad and Tobago
2019: Botswana
2020: Gabon
2021: Angola
Bhutan
2022: Antigua and Barbuda
Barbados
Singapore
Saint Kitts and Nevis
2023: Cook Islands, New Zealand
Mauritius
2024: Dominica
Namibia
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
There is a direct correlation between countries which belong to the Commonwealth, and therefore have previously been under British rule, and countries that still have homophobic biphobic and/or transphobic legislature in their constitutions. 25% of the world’s population (2.4 billion people) currently live in a country belonging to the Commonwealth, however they make up a disproportionately large 50 per cent of countries that still criminalise homosexuality. There are currently 64 countries (out of 195) in the world that criminalise homosexuality. Of these 64, almost half (29) belong to the Commonwealth.
Africa
Algeria
Cameroon ✅
Chad
Comoros
Egypt
Eritrea
Eswatini (Swaziland) ✅
Ethiopia
Gambia ✅
Ghana ✅
Guinea
Kenya ✅
Liberia
Libya
Malawi ✅
Mauritania
Morocco
Nigeria ✅
Senegal
Sierra Leone ✅
Somalia
South Sudan
Sudan
Tanzania
Togo ✅
Tunisia
Uganda ✅
Zambia ✅
Zimbabwe ✅
Asia, including the Middle East
Afghanistan
Bangladesh ✅
Brunei ✅
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Kuwait
Lebanon
Malaysia ✅
Maldives ✅
Myanmar
Oman
Pakistan ✅
Palestine
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Sri Lanka ✅
Syria
Turkmenistan
United Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan
Yemen
Americas
Grenada ✅
Guyana ✅
Jamaica ✅
St Lucia ✅
St Vincent & the Grenadines ✅
Oceania
Kiribati ✅
Niue
Papua New Guinea ✅
Samoa ✅
Solomon Islands ✅
Tonga ✅
Tuvalu ✅
✅ Commonwealth member
The vast majority of the remaining 64 are majority Islamic. What does this prove? Well, organised religion plays a vital role in the criminalisation of homosexuality. However, the key takeaway for the purposes of this video, is that in Uganda, prior to the widespread introduction of Christianity (Uganda is currently 84% Christian/14% Muslim) homosexuality was largely tolerated and not legislated for within the various tribal denominations. At worst, in most cases, it was merely ignored. Yet here we have Museveni telling the ‘evil West’ to butt-out, when the criminalisation of homosexuality was brought in directly on the back of a Bible (…and a Quran!) by a bunch of Westerners! Hypocrisy? 🤦♂️
4
-
4
-
“You know that most cases of FGM are consensual, right? Many people are raised in environments where this practice is normalised, so they don’t see any issue with it. They consent to it.” (Jegamespeed5399, aka ‘JayBits’)🤦♂️
Don’t be silly, son. Do you honestly think 12 year old girls in their right minds are going to willingly consent to having their genitals lopped off? That admission alone demonstrates where you are at. 🤦♂️Can you not think for yourself, for once, dude? I suggest to you, aged 12, that we chop off your cock for no reason. Do you consent to this? 🤦♂️
“Listen, hun, after school today me and your mother are going to take you to have a completely unnecessary medical procedure involving having your clitoris hacked off thereby leading to your being unable to have sexual pleasure ever and leading to the following possible complications:”
•severe pain
•excessive bleeding (haemorrhage)
•genital tissue swelling
•fever
•infections e.g., tetanus
•urinary problems
•wound healing problems
•injury to surrounding genital tissue
•shock
•vaginal problems (discharge, itching, bacterial vaginosis and other infections)
menstrual problems (painful menstruations, difficulty in passing menstrual blood, etc.)
•scar tissue and keloid
•sexual problems (pain during intercourse, decreased satisfaction)
•increased risk of childbirth complications (difficult delivery, excessive bleeding, caesarean section, need to resuscitate the baby, etc.) and newborn deaths
•need for later surgeries: for example, the sealing or narrowing of the vaginal opening (type 3) may lead to the practice of cutting open the sealed vagina later to allow for sexual intercourse and childbirth (deinfibulation). Sometimes genital tissue is stitched again several times, including after childbirth, hence the woman goes through repeated opening and closing procedures, further increasing both immediate and long-term risks
•psychological problems (depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, low self-esteem, etc.)
•death
“Now, darling, would you like to consent to this completely unnecessary procedure?” 🤦♂️
4
-
“I might be what you groomers call ‘asexual’”. (Ijumpjudyy) Wow! 😮That’s interesting, groomer! Never thought you’d reveal your hand like that, groomer. K, you don’t dig sex and because you don’t dig sex you ban consenting adults, who do dig sex, from having sex, groomer!? I fear revealing that has put the final nail in your intolerant ⚰️, groomer! 😂 👍😉 Hey, groomer! I’m proud to be a cucumber hater and not be so silly, irrational, intolerant and thick as to ban cucumbers, groomer! 🤣🥒 She also admitted this recently: “Imagine being an atheist.” Having previously denied her God credentials she scores yet another own 🥅! 🤡 😂
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
It’s a process. It’s a process whereby gay men and women simply gain the right to have consensual adult sex free from fear of criminalisation involving fines, imprisonment or worse, wherever they are on the planet.
The following is a timeline list of when and where homosexuality was decriminalised. This list is interesting as it gives the lie, somewhat, to the idea that decriminalising homosexuality is a wholly (or even a mainly) ‘Western thing’, so apparently feared by lube-head here. To pick some examples at random to demonstrate this: Turkey decriminalised in 1858; Japan in 1882; Taiwan in 1912; Thailand in 1956… while it was as late as 1967 in England/Wales and, remarkably, even later in the country of my birth, Scotland, in 1981. Equally remarkably, it was as late as 1993 before it was decriminalised in Washington DC, another 10 years after this before all the states had decriminalised. Added to this is the notable fact that in the list where homosexuality has never been illegal, almost every single country, without exception, is non-Western.
•Never been illegal
Aruba, Netherlands
Benin
Burkina Faso
Cambodia
Central African Republic
Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Republic of the Congo
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Christmas Island, Australia
Curaçao Curaçao, Netherlands
Djibouti
Equatorial Guinea
French Polynesia, France
Indonesia
Ivory Coast
Laos
Madagascar
Mali
Mayotte, France
Federated States of Micronesia
New Caledonia, France
Niger
North Korea
Rwanda
Sint Maarten, Netherlands
South Korea
Philippines
Vietnam
Wallis and Futuna, France
•18th Century
1791: Andorra
France Kingdom of France (includes Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Réunion, San Barthélemy, Saint Martin, and Saint Pierre and Miquelon)
Haiti Saint-Domingue (Haiti)
1793: Monaco
1794: Luxembourg
1795: Belgium
1798: Canton of Geneva, Switzerland
Ticino, Switzerland
Vaud, Switzerland
Valais, Switzerland
•19th Century
1811: Netherlands
1822: Dominican Republic
El Salvador
1830: Brazil
1832: Bolivia
1853: Argentina
1858: Turkey
1864: San Marino
1869: Suriname
1871: Guatemala
Mexico
1882: Japan
1890: Italy
Vatican City
1899: Honduras
•20th Century
1912: Taiwan
1924: Peru
1933: Denmark (includes Greenland and Faroe Islands)
1932: Poland
1934: Uruguay
1940: Iceland
1942: Switzerland
1944: Sweden
1951: Greece
Jordan
Palestine
1956: Thailand
1961: Hungary
1962: Czechoslovakia
Illinois, United States
1967: England and Wales, United Kingdom
1968: Bulgaria
East Germany
1969: Canada
West Germany
1971: Austria
Connecticut, United States
Costa Rica
Finland
1972: Colorado, United States
Oregon, United States
Norway
1973: Delaware, United States
Hawaii, United States
Malta
North Dakota, United States
1974: Massachusetts, United States
Ohio, United States
1975: East Timor
New Hampshire, United States
New Mexico, United States
South Australia
1976: Australian Capital Territory
Bahrain
California, United States
Indiana, United States
Maine, United States
Washington (state), United States
West Virginia, United States
1977: Croatia
Montenegro
Slovenia
South Dakota, United States
Vermont, United States
Wyoming, United States
1978: Guam, United States
Iowa, United States
Nebraska, United States
New Jersey, United States
1979: Cuba
Spain
1980: American, United States
New York, United States
Pennsylvania, United States
1981: Colombia
Scotland, United Kingdom
Victoria, Australia
1982: Northern Ireland, United Kingdom
1983: Guernsey, United Kingdom
Northern Mariana Islands
Northern Territory, Australia
Portugal
Wisconsin, United States
1984: New South Wales, Australia
1985: Virgin Islands, United States
1986: New Zealand
1988: Israel
1989: Falkland Islands, United Kingdom
Liechtenstein
1990: Jersey, United Kingdom
Paraguay
Western Australia
1991: Bahamas
Abkhazia
Hong Kong
Queensland, Australia
South Ossetia
Ukraine
1992: Estonia
Isle of Man, United Kingdom
Kentucky, United States
Latvia
1993: Washington, D.C. District of Columbia, United States
Gibraltar, United Kingdom
Guinea-Bissau
Republic of Ireland
Lithuania
Mongolia
Nevada Nevada, United States
Norfolk Island, Australia
Russia
1994: Kosovo
Belarus
Bermuda Bermuda, United Kingdom
Serbia
1995: Albania
Moldova
1996: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Portuguese Macau
North Macedonia
Romania
Tennessee, United States
1997: China
Ecuador
Montana, United States
Tasmania, Australia
Venezuela
1998: Cyprus Cyprus
Georgia, United States
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Republika Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Rhode Island, United States
South Africa
Tajikistan
1999: Chile
Maryland, United States
2000: Akrotiri and Dhekelia, United Kingdom
Azerbaijan
Georgia (country)
•21st Century
2001: Anguilla, United Kingdom
Arizona, United States
Bosnia and Herzegovina
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands, United Kingdom
Minnesota, United States
Montserrat, United Kingdom
Saint Helena
Pitcairn Islands, United Kingdom
Turks and Caicos Islands, United Kingdom
2002: Arkansas, United States
Transnistria
2003: Armenia
Tokelau, New Zealand
United States (nationwide)
2004: Cape Verde
2005: Marshall Islands
2007: Nepal
Vanuatu
2008: Nicaragua
Panama
2010: Fiji
2012: Lesotho
São Tomé and Príncipe
2014: Northern Cyprus
Palau
2015: Mozambique
2016: Belize
Nauru
Seychelles
2018: India
Trinidad and Tobago
2019: Botswana
2020: Gabon
2021: Angola
Bhutan
2022: Antigua and Barbuda
Barbados
Singapore
Saint Kitts and Nevis
2023: Cook Islands, New Zealand
Mauritius
2024: Dominica
Namibia
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Africa is the only continent where decriminalization of homosexuality has not been widespread since the mid-twentieth century. Africa is also, traditionally, the POOREST (in 2024, the top 10 poorest countries were all African - Global Finance), LEAST LITERATE (in 2024, of the 10 most illiterate countries, 9 were in Africa - World Atlas), LEAST DEMOCRATIC (in 2023, of the 30 least democratic countries, 16 were in Africa, 11 were in Asia and 3 were in South America - Statista), MOST RELIGIOUS (in 2024, of the 10 most religious countries, 7 were in Africa - Ceoworld) and the MOST CORRUPT (in 2023, of the 20 most corrupt countries, 11 were in Africa - Statista) continent on the planet.
Coincidence? 🤷♂️
4
-
4
-
Africa is the only continent where decriminalization of homosexuality has not been widespread since the mid-twentieth century. Africa is also, traditionally, the POOREST (in 2024, the top 10 poorest countries were all African - Global Finance), LEAST LITERATE (in 2024, of the 10 most illiterate countries, 9 were in Africa - World Atlas), LEAST DEMOCRATIC (in 2023, of the 30 least democratic countries, 16 were in Africa, 11 were in Asia and 3 were in South America - Statista), MOST RELIGIOUS (in 2024, of the 10 most religious countries, 7 were in Africa - Ceoworld) and the MOST CORRUPT (in 2023, of the 20 most corrupt countries, 11 were in Africa - Statista) continent on the planet.
Coincidence? 🤷♂️
4
-
4
-
There is a direct correlation between countries which belong to the Commonwealth, and therefore have previously been under British rule, and countries that still have homophobic biphobic and/or transphobic legislature in their constitutions. 25% of the world’s population (2.4 billion people) currently live in a country belonging to the Commonwealth, however they make up a disproportionately large 50 per cent of countries that still criminalise homosexuality. There are currently 64 countries (out of 195) in the world that criminalise homosexuality. Of these 64, almost half (29) belong to the Commonwealth.
Africa
Algeria
Cameroon ✅
Chad
Comoros
Egypt
Eritrea
Eswatini (Swaziland) ✅
Ethiopia
Gambia ✅
Ghana ✅
Guinea
Kenya ✅
Liberia
Libya
Malawi ✅
Mauritania
Morocco
Nigeria ✅
Senegal
Sierra Leone ✅
Somalia
South Sudan
Sudan
Tanzania
Togo ✅
Tunisia
Uganda ✅
Zambia ✅
Zimbabwe ✅
Asia, including the Middle East
Afghanistan
Bangladesh ✅
Brunei ✅
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Kuwait
Lebanon
Malaysia ✅
Maldives ✅
Myanmar
Oman
Pakistan ✅
Palestine
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Sri Lanka ✅
Syria
Turkmenistan
United Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan
Yemen
Americas
Grenada ✅
Guyana ✅
Jamaica ✅
St Lucia ✅
St Vincent & the Grenadines ✅
Oceania
Kiribati ✅
Niue
Papua New Guinea ✅
Samoa ✅
Solomon Islands ✅
Tonga ✅
Tuvalu ✅
✅ Commonwealth member
The vast majority of the remaining 64 are majority Islamic. What does this prove? Well, organised religion plays a vital role in the criminalisation of homosexuality. However, the key takeaway for the purposes of this video, is that in Uganda, prior to the widespread introduction of Christianity (Uganda is currently 84% Christian/14% Muslim) homosexuality was largely tolerated and not legislated for within the various tribal denominations. At worst, in most cases, it was merely ignored. Yet here we have Museveni telling the ‘evil West’ to butt-out, when the criminalisation of homosexuality was brought in directly on the back of a Bible (…and a Quran!) by a bunch of Westerners! Hypocrisy? 🤦♂️
4
-
4
-
The Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Act (2023) prescribes up to twenty years in prison for ‘promotion of homosexuality’, life imprisonment for ‘homosexual acts’, and the death penalty for ‘aggravated homosexuality’.
1. How, exactly, can you ‘promote’ homosexuality? This isn’t about trying to persuade people to become gay, as if you are trying to persuade people to vote for you, or persuade people to buy a new whizz-bang, fancy-pants vibrator (ijumpjudy has just put in her order - extra batteries included 😉); that’s impossible. It’s not like you can ‘catch’ homosexuality like you can catch a virus, any more than you can ‘catch’ heterosexuality. You are either gay or you aren’t, just as you are heterosexual, or you aren’t. So, primitively prescribing 20 years imprisonment for something you either are or aren’t no matter how much ‘promoting’ is done is bizarre, indeed. 🤦♂️
2. There are no such things as exclusively ‘homosexual acts’. If this term refers to anal/oral sex, then, spoiler alert: millions of heterosexuals engage in these acts, too, so to describe them as exclusively ‘homosexual acts’ makes zero sense. Even if we accept that giving/receiving a BJ or having anal sex is a ‘homosexual act’, you’re really going to imprison someone for life for this? 🤦♂️
3. ‘Aggravated homosexuality’ has the death penalty as its punishment and is described as an offence including ‘serial offenders, same-sex rape, sex in a position of authority or procured by intimidation, sex with persons older than seventy-five, sex with the disabled and mentally ill, and homosexual acts committed by a person with a previous conviction for homosexuality.’
Ok, let’s break this down:
•‘serial offenders’ - presumably this means people who just have consenting sex on many occasions. Death for this? 🤦♂️
•‘same-sex rape’ - as with heterosexual rape, this should obviously be criminalised, but I wouldn’t support death for it.
•‘sex in a position of authority or procured by intimidation’ - in the case of a position of authority, if the other person consents to the sex, I see no issue with it. If intimidation is involved and no consent given, then this should be criminalised.
•‘sex with persons older than 75’ - lol. I see absolutely no reason to criminalise someone for having sex with anyone who is above the age of consent. If that person is 75, 85 or 105, and they consent to the sex, then to institute the death penalty for this is hilariously irrational. 🤦♂️
•‘sex with the disabled and mentally ill’ - lol. If a disabled gay man or woman wants to have sex, where’s the fucking issue? 🤷♂️ Death for this? Yer having a fucking larff, aincha? 🤦♂️ Obviously, the mentally ill could be compromised when it comes to consent, so this needs sensitivity.
•‘homosexual acts committed by a person with a previous conviction for homosexuality’ - so, if someone has been convicted just once for, say, giving a BJ (which isn’t actually a ‘homosexual act’, as we’ve established there is no such thing) to his partner, and he’s caught doing it again, you kill him? Really? 🤦♂️
When you look closely at the Bill, it becomes increasingly ridiculous and barely believable that in 2024 we are criminalising people for simply having consensual adult sex. 🤦♂️
4
-
“I might be what you groomers call ‘asexual’”. (Ijumpjudyy) Wow! 😮That’s interesting, groomer! Never thought you’d reveal your hand like that, groomer. K, you don’t dig sex and because you don’t dig sex you ban consenting adults, who do dig sex, from having sex, groomer!? I fear revealing that has put the final nail in your intolerant ⚰️, groomer! 😂 👍😉 Hey, groomer! I’m proud to be a cucumber hater and not be so silly, irrational, intolerant and thick as to ban cucumbers, groomer! 🤣🥒 She also admitted this today: “Imagine being an atheist.” Having previously denied her God credentials she scores yet another own 🥅! 🤡 😂
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I believe that you cannot claim to be a human being, if you do not respect human rights. And this imposes on you an obligation to promote and protect the rights of other human beings.
Nelson Mandela held the view that love is inherent and inborn. Hate, on the other hand, is taught, acquired. I think we are all born good human beings and we're all born to love – to love ourselves, to love other human beings, to love our neighbours, regardless of colour, regardless of sexual orientation, regardless of stature.
Or it ought to be as simple as that. But there are people who find it easier to abuse power and authority. They pass the law simply because they can, define cultural values simply because they can. And they don't want us to have a debate about this.
One of the bill's objectives was supposedly to protect the “traditional”, “moral”, “religious” values of Uganda. What you are saying is that we have [one set of] “religious” values in a country where you have predominant Christian churches, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and pagans.
Homophobia has never been part of traditional African societies. Perhaps they had a lack of understanding, but they let them live in peace.
Leading up to the first Anti-Homosexuality Bill in 2014, we knew that radical Pentecostal communities from the US were sponsoring the introduction of anti-LGBTIQ laws throughout Africa. There are still a few US pastors – I call them hate-mongers because that's all they excel in, vending hatred in Uganda.
I don't understand why heterosexuals are so timid in their skin, why they think that the LGBTIQ community is the greatest threat to the survival of mankind.
I believe the problem is this. Our people, including legislators, do not know the difference between homosexuality and non-consensual sex. And they mix it up with paedophilia.
The Church of Uganda and the Church of England recently fell out over blessings for same-sex couples. That's where the problem started, before the Muslims jumped on the bandwagon. This has always been fuelled by Christian fundamentalism. Islam is a very conservative religion, but I don't think they had the capacity to pull this off without their Christian brothers and sisters. (Fox Odoi-Oywelowo - member of Uganda’s ruling party and President Yoweri Museveni’s legal adviser for more than 15 years)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
We should try to understand what’s going on here, instead of just calling the shots for one side or the other. Given that America and her partners have the most egregious record of meddling in the affairs of other sovereign territories, regardless of whether these territories wanted this or not, we cannot be surprised if Putin/Russia moves on a neighbouring country giving strong signals it wants to ally itself with the West and not Russia. Our double standards here are staggering. As far as I can see, Putin is only doing what the West has done for the past 250 years and more. If Putin agreed a deal with Canada and/or Mexico to install weapons on their soil directly targeting America, I doubt very much that America wouldn’t act, and very probably violently, based on its past record. Therefore, why are we surprised when Putin does what most every other place on this planet would’ve done, given what was transpiring in Ukraine and their direction facing West: that is, acting in his own perceived self-interest? And particularly when he sees Ukraine as a kind of renegade cousin who has spurned motherland Russia. It goes without saying that what Putin is doing is wrong, but it’s understandable, even if you are not Putin.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Most Crop Circles are unimpressive nothings. What gets me about this phenomenon are the intricate, amazing-looking ones that, if you asked me, couldn’t be made by humans in a week, let alone a night. My only doubt about the really impressive ones is: were they were genuinely made ‘overnight’. The one I always cite is the 2001 Milk Hill circle. Now, if you tell me that a bunch of, say, 25 people have a week to create this masterpiece (for that’s what it is), then I might believe you, but even then with difficulty, given it’s scale and precision. If you tell me that on a Monday this thing wasn’t there, and by a Tuesday morning it was … then, there is either an army of very skilful, speedy artists out there, or something very strange is going on. It all hinges on whether these things are created overnight, something which cannot be verified, alas.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Yeah, but your argument, such as it is, seems to assume women are more attracted in an evolutionary biological/cultural sense to captain caveman, going out and hunting for the meat. You’re mocking ‘feminist men’, as you see them (in a caricatured sense), but surely if you’re mocking these weak saps that leaves more choice for you as women will gravitate to the Neanderthal man, waving his club (calling Freud!), roaring ‘Me Tarzan! You Jane!’ It clears the field for you if you consider male feminists unattractive to women. You’re wrong, of course, if you do, for there are all types of women attracted to all types of men and a fair few of them are attracted to the type who has a handle on the feminist cultural debate, and can argue it from both sides.🤓
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Yeah, but our furthest out object, Voyager 1, is ‘only’ currently 14 billion miles away from Earth having been launched in 1977, whereas Proxima Centauri, our nearest star, is 4.22 light years away, or in other words, using current technology, would take us 6,300 years to reach. This sheer scale of the Universe, for me, makes it nigh-on impossible that we have been visited by extraterrestrial beings or crafts. However, given the 200 billion trillion stars in the known Universe, I don’t for one moment, simply on the balance of statistical probability, doubt that they are ‘out there’; just not ‘in here’.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I like to sometimes play a name game. It’s where I compare places in the US to places in the UK that share a name. Portland, Oregon is better than Portland, Dorset. Boston, Massachusetts is better than Boston, Lincolnshire. York, Yorkshire is better than New York, New York. Birmingham, Alabama is just as much of a s*hthole as Birmingham, West Midlands. Oxford, Oxfordshire is better than Oxford, Maine. Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, is better than Cambridge, Massachusetts, etc etc.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@shikag9638 So why do so many other developed nations not have America’s baleful gun culture? Germany, the UK, Japan, for example, don’t seem to have this terrible issue with gun crime, and yet there is relative peace in terms of general society, and certainly mass killings are rare. America needs to seriously look at its Second Amendment. There are only three countries that have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms: Mexico, Guatemala, and the United States. Although Mexico and Guatemala both have a constitutional right to bear arms, the US is in a league of its own simply because it is the only country without restrictions on gun ownership in its constitution. After the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, it inspired other countries around the world to provide their citizens with the right to own guns. However, only 15 constitutions (in nine countries) ever included an explicit right to bear arms. They are Bolivia, Costa Rica, Colombia, Honduras, Nicaragua, Liberia, Guatemala, Mexico, and the US. All of those countries, excluding Mexico, the US, and Guatemala, have since rescinded the constitutional right to bear arms. So, America is the outlier here in terms of citizens’ rights to bear arms. Does it want to continue this, and put up with its horrible mass killings? Or does it want to consider repealing the Second Amendment, thereby allowing the average American citizen to breathe that much easier in the ‘land of the free’?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The evidence is clear: the main cause of climate change is burning fossil fuels such as oil, gas, and coal. When burnt, fossil fuels release carbon dioxide into the air, causing the planet to heat up. The climate on Earth has been changing since it formed 4.5 billion years ago. Until recently, natural factors have been the cause of these changes. Natural influences on the climate include volcanic eruptions, changes in the orbit of the Earth, and shifts in the Earth's crust (known as plate tectonics). Over the past one million years, the Earth has experienced a series of ice ages, including cooler periods (glacials) and warmer periods (interglacials). Glacial and interglacial periods cycle roughly every 100,000 years, caused by changes in Earth's orbit around the sun. For the past few thousand years, Earth has been in an interglacial period with a constant temperature. However, since the Industrial Revolution in the 1800s, the global temperature has increased at a much faster rate. By burning fossil fuels and changing how we use the land, human activity has quickly become the leading cause of changes to our climate. There’s also water vapour to consider, too. For although water vapour probably accounts for about 60% of the Earth's greenhouse warming effect, water vapour does not control the Earth's temperature. Because these gases are not condensable at atmospheric temperatures and pressures, the atmosphere can pack in much more of these gases. It seems indisputable that not only is the planet warming rather rapidly, but that much of this warming is due to manmade activity.😳
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Of 54 African nations, as we speak, only 1 is classified as a ‘full democracy’: Mauritius. The rest are flawed democracies, hybrid democracies incorporating strongly authoritarian anti-democratic elements, or outright dictatorships. The truth is that too much of Africa is still mired in tribalism and too few States have made the requisite efforts to bring their countries into the sunny uplands of the least worst way of politically organising human affairs. The key here has to be education. Of the salient things functioning democracies need to embrace in order to have any chance of working, such as participation, free and fair elections, representation, accountability, transparency, responsiveness, pluralism, and the rule of law, far too few African nations tick even half of these boxes. Until they do, chiefly through education, Africa will remain benighted and doomed to anti-democratic trouble and strife.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
It’s not, really. It’s spoken French that is the issue. The actual learning of the grammar and written language is no more difficult than English. English is more difficult in many ways: pronunciation; number of words (1,000,000+); patterns of grammar etc. I’m willing to bet that you are saying English is easier to learn simply because this, out of the two languages, was the one you were most exposed to when growing up. If you had been taught French at school as a main second language you would say something different. For example, the main reason I am more comfortable with French than, say, Spanish or Italian, is because at school I was exposed to it. I’m willing to bet good money that your main second language exposure while at school was English, not French, ergo you feel more comfortable with the former, and not the latter.
4
-
4
-
This humour is essentially Beavis & Butt-Head sniggering into their gauche, socially awkward hands. Not particularly edifying, or funny, come to that, but let’s face it, they were sniggering at this sort of stuff back in Roman times, if the unearthed graffiti are anything to go by. Mankind (and, yes, I use ‘mankind’ here, advisedly, as it is men who go for this sort of humour) has always had one eye on the starry heavens and one eye in the gutter; but the key is that, at the very least, he was actually looking at the stars, while fiddling with his wotsit in the gutter.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@8:03 This guy slightly contradicts himself here from what he said earlier in the episode when he was praising Brits for having a cultural openness he was attracted to; here he appears to be falling into that trap of looking at the Brits in Spain as the stereotypical blinkered, monocultural, monolingual dolts that infest the Costas. They are to be abhorred for their blithe delusion that they are somehow ‘it’ with their fish & chips, tatty tattoos & weak beer. Believe it or not, there are Brits who go to the ‘other Spain’; the Spain where life is recognisably Spanish & not some raggedy British enclave full of morons. It’s no accident that the 2 most ‘British’ places in Spain are also the 2 most physically & culturally repulsive in the whole of the country: Benidorm & Gibraltar (yes, I realise Gibraltar isn’t really in Spain, but you know what I mean). They are also the most deeply boring places for the reasons quoted above & it always astonished me that any self-respecting native Spaniard ever has anything to do with either place. For example, I’m told that there are actually Spanish people who go to Benidorm for a holiday?! Go figure. One last thing to say on all this & it’s pertinent: of all the Spaniards that come to live in the UK I’ve never met one who didn’t speak virtually perfect English & a few other languages besides. This cannot be said for the Bulldog British cretins on the Costas. They never learned Spanish & have no intention of doing so. And why? Well, they’re often thick, which doesn’t help, but also quite simply they don’t have to as they know they can get by with their poorly-phrased English which they never learned properly in the first place.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@HOLLASOUNDS Not sure the war ‘is going as Putin intended’ given the quite bad losses on the Russian side. Moreover, it looks like his fourth-rate, unmotivated army is going to have an issue keeping Ukraine if and when they take the country. Putin has been a one man party for 22 years such that literally no one near him has been able to say ‘no’, and those who do, get divorced (just ask his ex-wife). While the west isn’t totally free of culpability here, Putin, for me, exemplifies the dictum: power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely . Putin’s mind has been addled as it hasn’t had a healthy challenge to it with fresh ideas for 22 years. Also, a large part of what he’s doing here is simply belated cold revenge for the USSR’s loss in the Cold War. Quite frankly, I’m surprised it has taken him this long to actually move on Ukraine after the initial move in 2014, and very likely the ex-USSR Baltic states will be next if he gets his way in Ukraine.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Just watched a report on the BBC where the reporter was wringing his hands asking “What could have caused this?”
Well, how about following a medieval book, the Quran, which has 123 verses that call for fighting and killing anyone who does not agree with the statement, “There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet.” Jews and Christians are specifically included among such “infidels.”
The Quran’s Sura 5:33 says about infidels, “They shall be slain or crucified, or have their hands and feet cut off.” Sura 9:5 says, “Slay the infidels wherever you find them ... and lie in wait for them ... and establish every stratagem (of war against them).” Sura 47:4-9 promises paradise to whoever cuts off the head of an infidel.
Here’s the difference: back in the day Christians followed the Bible to the letter, more or less. However, Europe underwent an Enlightenment 250 years ago and literal readings of Biblical scripture gave way to more nuanced interpretations. That hasn’t happened with Islam. No Reformation. No Enlightenment. Just a billion people willing to take a primitive, manmade text at face value and to the letter.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@JohnRice-vb2ze It’s not a ‘ridiculous comment’ at all. I can easily imagine saying to a guy wearing a kippah, “Hey, mate, you might want to take a different route.” It would work the other way, too. I can imagine saying to, say, a woman in a hijab about to walk past an orthodox Jewish protest: “Hey, love, you might want to take a different route.” In both cases, I would just be trying to protect them and in both cases I wouldn’t be being anti-Jewish or anti-Islam/Palestinian. The threat to arrest was wrong, but I don’t necessarily see the friendly advice as being so.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
As a lifelong agnostic, I have very little time for any organised religion. However, the thing that should be said is that I feel zero threat from any organised religion, bar one. If I were a public figure and publicly castigated Jesus, or Moses, or Krishna, or Buddha, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it’s very likely nothing would happen to me. If I publicly slagged off Muhammad, it’s quite likely there’d be a backlash and I’d be watching my back for the rest of my life. That’s the difference. Just ask Salman Rushdie or the Batley teacher who, btw, didn’t even criticise Muhammad; he just showed a damn picture! Imagine living in a society where certain people are so offended by a cartoon, they threaten death to the person who showed it! It seems Islam is so trigger-sensitive it can’t take honest criticism, when it’s just a bunch of manmade ideas like all the rest.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The greatest problem humanity faces, and has always faced, is one of perspective. We have narrowed our vision such that we are unable to see the universal wood for the exclusive trees. We have hitched our star to this or that family, clan, tribe, nationalism, religion, such that we have become deluded, unable to serenely see what actually is. We are cosmic dust on a grain of sand, one of trillions of grains of sand, whirling around a nuclear reactor, one of trillions of nuclear reactors and we are willing to abase ourselves to murdering one another for an accident of birth, or an imagined daddy in the sky? Has it come to this? There are alien civilisations who use this Earth as a cosmic pit stop on their intergalactic travels and they look at us and weep. They have perspective. They can literally see the Earth in toto. They cannot see the pettifogging, sanguinary squabbles over this or that imaginary line drawn on a map. They cannot see the ignorant ranters championing their imagined God, ranked against the ignorant ranters championing their imaginary God. The solution to all this nonsense is very simple. Expand your terms of self-definition. Refuse to accept a random, arbitrary accident of birth as a salient marker of your identity. Refuse to accept unthought-out shibboleths handed down to you to shore up your fear of death. Refuse to be proud, unless your pride is grounded in self-motivated, self-guided achievement, and not some random, bizarre, nonsensical ‘pride’ based on the fact your mother happened to plop you out here, and not there. None of this would matter a fig, but for a key point: we now, at this critical juncture in our cosmic journey, face the very real and present danger of incinerating this planet and everything on it. Really. We are better than that.😳
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@DianeMonahan I am frequently asked if I have visited Israel, whereas yet, it is simply assumed that I have. Well, I don’t travel. I really don’t, and if I did, I probably wouldn’t visit Israel. I remember how it was in 1948 when Israel was being established and all my Jewish friends were ecstatic. I was not. I said: what are we doing? We are establishing ourselves in a ghetto, in a small corner of a vast Muslim sea. The Muslims will never forget nor forgive, and Israel, as long as it exists, will be embattled. I was laughed at, but I was right. I can’t help but feel that the Jews didn’t really have the right to appropriate a territory only because 2000 years ago, people they consider their ancestors, were living there. History moves on and you can’t really turn it back. (Isaac Asimov)
Think about this a little, Diane. There’s a lot of truth in it.👍
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I am frequently asked if I have visited Israel, whereas yet, it is simply assumed that I have. Well, I don’t travel. I really don’t, and if I did, I probably wouldn’t visit Israel. I remember how it was in 1948 when Israel was being established and all my Jewish friends were ecstatic, I was not. I said: what are we doing? We are establishing ourselves in a ghetto, in a small corner of a vast Muslim sea. The Muslims will never forget nor forgive, and Israel, as long as it exists, will be embattled. I was laughed at, but I was right. I can’t help but feel that the Jews didn’t really have the right to appropriate a territory only because 2000 years ago, people they consider their ancestors, were living there. History moves on and you can’t really turn it back. (Isaac Asimov)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Ibn_Abdulaziz I’ll leave you with this. I first read it when I was 18 and I’ve not encountered a better chunk of wisdom since. It’s by Walt Whitman: This is what you shall do; Love the earth and sun and the animals, despise riches, give alms to every one that asks, stand up for the stupid and crazy, devote your income and labor to others, hate tyrants, argue not concerning God, have patience and indulgence toward the people, take off your hat to nothing known or unknown or to any man or number of men, go freely with powerful uneducated persons and with the young and with the mothers of families, read these leaves in the open air every season of every year of your life, re-examine all you have been told at school or church or in any book, dismiss whatever insults your own soul, and your very flesh shall be a great poem and have the richest fluency not only in its words but in the silent lines of its lips and face and between the lashes of your eyes and in every motion and joint of your body.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@DucadiBorgogna_ Well, actually there is interpretation, as it’s well known that there are layers of interpretation of each Surah. I was just making the point that if certain passages exhort violence, and many do, and you read these as actual commands to behaviour, then we have a problem, Mecca. Take the following:
Surah 3:151: We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve (all non-Muslims) …
Surah 2:191: And kill them (non-Muslims) wherever you find them … kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers (non-Muslims).
Surah 9:5: Then kill the disbelievers (non-Muslims) wherever you find them, capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush …
Seems to me that there is little unambiguous about these passages. However, the Koran, as with the Bible, is replete with passages which may be interpreted on many levels depending on your mood and whim. Personally, all of it is just stuff written by humans, and for me it’s to be read as I would read Greek/Roman myth. Taken literally is the way of madness.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@keiolge You make no effort to understand what he might be doing. You make no effort to step into the shoes of another and see what they see. That doesn’t justify anything and you are not necessarily agreeing with another when you try to understand their point of view. No one does anything inappropriate given their model of the world. All I’m doing here is trying to understand Putin while condemning him every step of the way as I do so. If you can’t see this then so be it. I repeat, I’m apolitical, agnostic, anational. I happen to think, that along with organised religion, nationalism has been the most baleful blight humans ever had the misfortune to invent. I refuse to hitch any part of my identity to a random, arbitrary accident of birth, as that’s just irrational and stupid. I had no say where I was born, and could have been born anywhere, so I’m not going to take some kind of weird unearned credit for this. It’s precisely for this reason that I’m coming at this Russia/Ukraine thing as a neutral. I can see both sides. I wholeheartedly disagree with what Putin is doing. He’s evil. However, and this is the key point of this whole thread for me: from Putin’s point of view I can see why he might be doing this - a mixture of naked aggressive evil, yes, but also he’s thinking strategically and clearly sees Ukrainians and Ukraine as part of the greater motherland Russia he has concocted in his strange mind. In all this, he is wrong to violently invade another sovereign territory and impose his will.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Whenever this issue crops up, one is reminded of George Carlin’s insightful take on this whole abortion thing: Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Adam-mo6gf Look mate, much like you I find all organised religion anathema, but precisely because we live in an open, free democracy (relatively), we permit freedom of worship. My take on all this stuff is quite simple: if you are breaking no laws, speaking the native language, and paying your taxes, you can pretty much do what you want between consenting adults. Religion and politics should be kept separate, at the state level, notwithstanding that the UK doesn’t observe this, but thankfully the Church is so defanged in today’s Britain it’s powerless. Like you, of all the organised religions, it’s Islam I trust the least, based on what you refer to about democracy, for example, (but also women’s rights, an obvious homophobia and the startlingly violent passages in the Koran openly exhorting Jihad for every Muslim) and based on past behaviour. However, I repeat what I said earlier: the vast majority, actually all the Muslims I have known in my life have been integrated with the wider community and were leading peaceful, productive lives. Again, to focus on the ones that aren’t, is like focussing on that black sheep once again, to the exclusion of the rest.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Adam-mo6gf I have absolutely no issue with 99% of the other cultures that come to live here. I agree, there is a small cohort of Islam that seems to not quite make the same effort as most every Indian, Chinese, African I know of, seems to. However, I would suggest if you’re going to go down the path of banning people of certain faiths coming here, that would be just unworkable in practice. Better to have a well-functioning immigration system allowing a quota in, based on what they can bring to this country, if we’re talking economics. As to refugees; they should all be treated equally, regardless of their culture, and if genuine refugees, are, and should be granted asylum.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Dagoth Ur As far as I can see, no one is spreading ‘hate, terror and wanting to overwrite culture’ more than a minority hardline Muslim cohort. Every other culture I can think of makes the effort. I agree, certain strands of Islam have a bit of an issue doing this, it seems, and I also agree, that it’s a little bit beyond me why some within Islam come to live here and don’t make a bit more of an effort, if only out of courtesy to those with whom you have come to live. All that said, every Muslim I’m personally aware of, about 12-15, make that effort and they are as ‘integrated’ as every other culture I can think of who have settled on these shores.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@paultaylor9498 Wow! This is clearly a trigger issue for you. My take on this is rather simple: I’m pro legal economic immigration controlled by the host country, whichever country that happens to be and of course all genuine asylum seekers should be given safe haven. I know dozens and dozens of friends and acquaintances (Polish, Spanish, Italian, Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Australian, French, Indian, Pakistani, American, Nigerian etc) and I genuinely have no problem with a single one of them living and working here as legal immigrants. I have lived in 6 countries and in each of those countries all that was asked of me was 3 things: 1. Speak the language. 2. Pay your taxes. 3. Don’t break the law. This is all I ask of the immigrants that come here. The fact that they bring their interesting foods and cultures only enriches my existence and makes it more interesting. There is only one particular group of people I have an issue with, and that’s a certain cohort of Muslims who are reluctant to integrate properly and this is regrettable. I am an agnostic and I mistrust all organised religion, but Islam is the one I mistrust most. I think in this whole debate about immigration it’s important to distinguish between ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘multiethnicism’: the former if taken to extremes can cause issues, but what I see in the UK is a good, healthy form of multiethnicism, on the whole, with one or two pockets of trouble mainly caused by certain Muslims.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@EE-kt8sh True. But two wrongs don’t make a right. Although Russia is an aggressor for sure here, it’s hardly been unprovoked, and this is really a Civil War (particularly from Putin’s point of view). NATO reneging on its agreement not to expand post 1989 has provoked Putin. Casual flouting of 2014 Minsk agreements not to aggress against pro-Russian Ukrainians in the east, leading to the loss of about 14,000 has provoked Putin. The 2014 coup having much evidence (surprise! surprise!) of the paw prints of the CIA\USA has provoked Putin. Zelensky has publicly expressed a desire to acquire nuclear weapons, understandably spooking Moscow and thereby provoking Putin. There’s also the stench of corrupt family Biden deals with Ukraine, as well, which might explain sleepy Joe’s reluctance to get directly involved here. For now. Add to this Putin’s statement that the dissolution of the Soviet Empire was the ‘most tragic geopolitical event of the 20th century’, along with his belief in the greater mother Russia project and bringing the recalcitrant (as he sees them) Ukrainians back into the Slavic familial bosom and you have a perfect storm in which Putin feels justified in rolling his tanks into another sovereign, self-governing territory. He’s deluded in doing this, of course, as most Ukrainians want nothing to do with him, and rightly so. None of the above makes what Putin is doing right, but it makes it a little more understandable from Putin’s/Russia’s point of view.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Tactical5 I’m not anti-immigration, but it should be done carefully, and while immigrants should be free to follow their own cultural practices, within the law of course, it seems that only certain strains of Islam have a problem with making that necessary effort to integrate. I would also add, that most Muslims I’m aware of in my own traditionally non-Muslim country, do make that necessary effort, as do all the other cultures I can think of. Militant Islam on the other hand seems to actively not want to be part of free, open, liberal democracies, quite simply as Islam appears to be a religion not particularly conducive to the values the West upholds, for all the West’s faults.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@TC8787-yq7og “In the year 2050 the number of Muslims in Sweden would be 1,130,000 (or 11.1% of the population) under the zero migration scenario, 2,470,000 (or 20.5% of the population) under the medium migration scenario, and 4,450,000 (or 30.6% of the population) under the high migration scenario.” (Source: Wikipedia, bro)
Now go away, because you clearly can’t deal with truth, bro. 👋
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
What seems consistently overlooked in all this, is that this current nonsense since February 2022 can really be dated to 2013, when pro-Russian President Yanukovych rejected a deal for greater European integration. Protests ensued. Yanukovych tried to quell these violently, and was removed in what was essentially a coup (no doubt a Western-backed coup). Since 2014, a pro-Western regime has reigned in Ukraine. Ukraine is almost 50/50 split down the middle between those who look East and those who look West. The 2010 election results demonstrated this, where Yanukovych received 49% of the vote, with the great majority of his supporters living East of the Dnieper, while his pro-Western rival, Tymoshenko, received 46% of the vote, with the vast majority of of her supporters living West of the Dnieper. (The colour-code map on Wikipedia starkly shows this East/West split.) In other words, this is complicated. Those of us with no skin in the game can clearly see Russia’s illegal invasion is wrong. But we can also see that the behaviour of the pro-Western Ukrainian government towards ethnic Russian Ukrainians in the East of the country is equally wrong. The only way out of this mess, given the demographics and the voting patterns outlined, may be to create an East Ukraine and a West Ukraine.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Well, that’ll certainly take the chill off the Sauvignon Blanc. 🍷 This is really a question of priorities. People use the argument that France shouldn’t have given so much aid to Ukraine, but to date, that has been about $300 million - a drop in the ocean, when compared to the billions pensions cost per year. The other thing to factor in here is that France is 3rd in a list of OECD countries in terms of the proportion of its GDP pensions take up, at 14%. For comparison, the UK is 5%. Pushing back the retirement age by two years and extending the pay-in period would yield an additional 17.7 billion euros ($19.0 billion) in annual pension contributions, allowing the system to break even by 2027. Economically, Macron’s measure makes sense, but the way it has been done is awful and undemocratic, and the only reason he bypassed a vote was he knew it would be voted down. After Denmark, France is the second highest taxed country in Europe, but my own proposal would be to raise the tax threshold for the top band earners in France, and let the middle and lower income workers retire at 62 after a life of work. After all, the rich can retire at any point they want! The less rich don’t have the luxury of that choice. As Thomas Jefferson said: “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@bignumbers As to America being 5x the population of the UK. Well, yes, but in America in 2017, there were almost 11,000 gun deaths. In the UK, in the year to March 2020, a total of 30 people died as result of gun crime. 11,000 versus 30. That’s not 5x more gun deaths; that’s 367x times more gun deaths! So, the population argument is a complete non-starter. Yes, there are social/cultural differences between the States and the UK, but not necessarily differences so great that they explain a 367x discrepancy in gun death stats. No, I would argue, that a huge proportion of the difference is down to the ridiculously easy legal access to guns in America.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The key issue for many European people isn’t immigration per se (most people I know have no particular problem with strictly controlled legal immigration); it’s mass Islamic immigration that is the problem for many, including many left of centre voters. Just a couple of weeks ago, we had an Islamic dude wanting a Scottish island all to himself and his followers as an ‘Islamic caliphate’. Seriously, I’m old enough to remember when stories like this would’ve been an April Fool’s joke! As a secular agnostic, I’m constantly amazed at just how carefree western, secular, liberal democracies are when it comes to importing an ideology diametrically opposed to liberal democracy. Islam is political (‘Islam is politics or it is nothing.’ ~ Ayatollah Khomeini). It wants control of the reins. At the current rate, the UK is projected to be 17% Islamic in 2 decades. Sweden, astonishingly, is projected to be 30% Islamic by 2050. A full third of Swedes will be Muslims. With numbers like that, Europe can expect some interesting times ahead.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@K G For me, in all these things, I look to the will of the majority; and, as far as I can gather the vast majority of Ukrainians want nothing to do with Russia, if it means being ruled by them. This seems clear. Not sure how, after 300,000-odd years of human ‘evolution’, we can’t just respect this. This seems to be a fact: the vast majority of Ukrainian citizens want nothing to do with Russia, if that means being subsumed into that latter country . Given this, not sure why this is so difficult, aside from one power-crazed fuctard throwing his weight around.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
So, why do no other comparable nations have this homicide issue to the same extent? I would say that why they don’t, is because they limit access to legal guns. This 18 year-old freak would, arguably, not have done this if he were not able to walk into a gun store and buy one, no questions asked, no vetting, nothing. If you make guns so free and easy, you are going to get people being free and easy with guns. Other nations recognise this, and legislate for this. America doesn’t. Why? The archaic, primitive 2nd Amendment, protected by those who accept fortunes from gun lobbyists to maintain the status quo (“Love of money is the root of all evil”). America, Guatemala, Mexico: no other nation on Earth allows their citizens this kind of legal access to deadly assault weapons. They don’t allow this for a very good reason. It’s as clear as day to everyone aside from those in America upholding this stupidity in the face of the daily evidence. As Einstein said apropos ‘insanity’: doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result. That’s America vis-a-vis guns.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Jwiznat I never said it was ‘monocausal’. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is driven by several factors: ethnic, national, historical, and religious. Religious identity is the key factor that impacts this issue existentially. Why is religion at the core of this conflict? Several religious factors pertinent to Islam and Judaism dictate the role of religion as the main factor in the conflict, notably including the sanctity of holy sites and the apocalyptic narratives of both religions, which are detrimental to any potential for lasting peace between the two sides. Extreme religious Zionists in Israel increasingly see themselves as guardians and definers of how the Jewish state should be, and are very stringent when it comes to any concessions to the Arabs. On the other hand, Islamist groups in Palestine and elsewhere in the Islamic world advocate the necessity of liberating the “holy” territories and sites for religious reasons, and preach violence and hatred against Israel and the Jewish people. Religion-based rumors propagated by extremists in the media and social media about the hidden religious agendas of the other side exacerbate these tensions. Examples include rumors about a “Jewish Plan” to destroy al Aqsa mosque and build the Jewish third temple on its remnants, and, on the other side rumors that Muslims hold the annihilation of Jews at the core of their belief. In addition, worsening socio-economic conditions in the Arab and Islamic world contribute to the growth of religious radicalism, pushing a larger percentage of youth towards fanaticism, and religion-inspired politics. The advent of the Arab spring, ironically, also posed a threat to Arab-Israeli peace, as previously stable regimes were often challenged by extreme political views. A prominent example was the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, who after succeeding to the presidency in 2012, threatened to compromise the peace agreement with Israel based on their religious ideology – even if they did not immediately tear up the treaty. My main point is simply, that organised religion has fundamentally caused this issue.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
While I uphold the right of people to act in self-defence in the face of any aggressor, the nationalist thinking underpinning much of what is going on here doesn’t serve us as a species, as the bloody annals of history clearly show. The essential cause of all this trouble (and the trouble of mankind since the year dot), is hitching your core identity to an accident of birth. Main problem of humans is one of self-definition; before ‘human being’ too many of us want to put family, clan, tribe, nation, religion. This is, essentially, why we can’t tolerate one another. Most of us can’t raise our game to see that a random, arbitrary accident of birth, something in which you had no say, is a nonsensical, irrational, pointless, and very, very dangerous notion to cleave to, given 300,000 murderously squabbling years of Homo Sapiens. Along with imagined daddies in the sky to shore up our fear of death, nationalism is the most egregious, baleful blight human beings ever had the misfortune to invent. As we speak, insular human beings are murdering themselves over an accident of birth. The gods, if they existed, would look down on us and weep.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Whenever the topic of climate change/global warming comes up, as someone neither particularly right nor particularly left politically, I despair at how tribalised and polarised this debate becomes with each camp ensconced in their respective corners, equally convinced that their case is watertight. As ever with these things (and the reason I’m a centrist in almost everything), the truth lies somewhere in the middle. One of the most reasoned and balanced paragraphs I have ever read about this topic is the following from Stephen Pinker:
If the emission of greenhouse gases continues, the Earth’s average temperature will rise to at least 1.5°C above the preindustrial level by the end of the 21st century, and perhaps to 4°C above that level or more. That will cause more frequent and more severe heat waves, more floods in wet regions, more droughts in dry regions, heavier storms, more severe hurricanes, lower crop yields in warm regions, the extinction of more species, the loss of coral reefs (because the oceans will be both warmer and more acidic), and an average rise in sea level of between 0.7 metres and 1.2 metres from both the melting of land ice and the expansion of seawater. (Sea level has already risen almost eight inches since 1870, and the rate of the rise appears to be accelerating.) Low-lying areas would be flooded, island nations would disappear beneath the waves, large stretches of farmland would no longer be arable, and millions of people would be displaced. The effects could get still worse in the 22nd century and beyond, and in theory could trigger upheavals such as a diversion of the Gulf Stream (which would turn Europe into Siberia) or a collapse of the Antarctic ice sheets. A rise of 2°C is considered the most that the world could reasonably adapt to, and a rise of 4°C, in the words of a 2012 World Bank report, “simply must not be allowed to occur.”
The planet is warming. Fact. Humans (according to the overwhelming scientific consensus) are the principal cause of this warming over the past couple of centuries through fossil fuel burning. Now, given this, and given the consequences eloquently outlined by Pinker, we have to collectively decide whether we want to continue on this trajectory or not. For me, given the data, and given the projected consequences contingent upon that data, it makes utter sense to phase out fossil fuels. With this caveat: we must do it sensibly. They will be needed for some time to come as the transition to renewables is made. Who knows? Given that we are currently in an inter-glacial period, 500 years down the line when we have stopped using fossil fuels, the planet might start a rapid cooling trend leading to that ever-promised next Ice Age, and there might be a desperate clamour to start burning fossil fuels as quickly as possible!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@medicalsciencesanimations4743 When it comes to organised religion, I am mighty suspicious, simply because its historical record teaches me to be suspicious. If you want to believe in a deity, fine; however, when it impinges on my business, my hackles tend to get raised. George Carlin had some nice observations on organised religion. They go like this: Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@2:25 Lol. What does America know about ‘democracy’? Biden lecturing us about democracy is like Gary Glitter lecturing us about childcare. The US has been the greatest State subverter of democracy on this planet, bar none. Hell, even in this Ukrainian case, in 2014, President Yanukovych was ousted and a pro-West/US government installed. If you look at a map of how people vote in the Ukraine, there is an incredibly clear split in voting patterns geographically East/West, with the further West you go, the more pro-West (culturally and politically) the populace are, and the further East you go the more pro-East (culturally and politically) they are. Ukraine is essentially 2 countries in this respect. This is an incredibly complex situation, given the history, and there are no easy answers. It could be, ultimately, that Ukraine may have to be partitioned, creating West Ukraine and East Ukraine.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@sharpasacueball I’m guessing you’ve never been. Your loss. The “old buildings” are its true glory. Almost every city, town and village, north to south, east to west is achingly, staggeringly beautiful. The graffiti is an eyesore. But to not like the “old buildings” bespeaks a severe lack of appreciation for architecture. You sound like one of those crushingly dull, solipsistic individuals who trots out the lazy “it was before my time” when faced with a piece of knowledge/wisdom produced before your own birth; as if your own production was when everything that really matters began. 🥱 These aren’t buildings, but architectural masterpieces, one and all. Aside from the stuff that was rebuilt after the War. I’m guessing you’re the type of person who thinks a glass and steel, ugly, soulless hellhole like Dubai is the summum bonum of urban pulchritude; or downtown Atlanta is the bees-knees when it, along with almost every other major American urban space, is nothing but a deeply underwhelming, strangely oppressive, depressing experience for the eye. And yes, I include New York in that, for although I have a small soft spot for that place due to matters of the heart, a bunch of phallic modern steel and glass and concrete buildings on an island, for me, does not necessarily a beautiful city make. Far from it. In these cases, you are welcome to your modern excrescences and I’ll keep my old bella Italia!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@tastypymp1287 Never got the “hate what another human does when it comes to their sexual preferences” memo. Makes utterly no sense. I tend to dislike people for their ideas, their beliefs, their opinions, their dress-sense, and not something over which they have utterly no say or control. It’s like dissing people with different skin colour. Pointless. Not only pointless, but utterly stupid and moronic, as no one chooses their skin colour, just as no one chooses their sexuality. But here’s the clincher for me: even if we did choose our skin colour and sexuality, it still wouldn’t bother me one iota that some random has a different skin colour or sexuality to me. The sooner we can move beyond this primitive nonsense as a species, the better. To me, being homophobic is a bit like feeling resentful of someone digging Uranus because you’re not an astronomer! 🔭 👈 My argument.
Where yours? 🤔🤡
3
-
3
-
@tastypymp1287 Never got the “hate what another human does when it comes to their sexual preferences” memo. Makes utterly no sense. I tend to dislike people for their ideas, their beliefs, their opinions, their dress-sense, and not something over which they have utterly no say or control. It’s like dissing people with different skin colour. Pointless. Not only pointless, but utterly stupid and moronic, as no one chooses their skin colour, just as no one chooses their sexuality. But here’s the clincher for me: even if we did choose our skin colour and sexuality, it still wouldn’t bother me one iota that some random has a different skin colour or sexuality to me. The sooner we can move beyond this primitive nonsense as a species, the better. To me, being homophobic is a bit like feeling resentful of someone digging Uranus because you’re not an astronomer! 🔭 👈My argument.
Where’s yours? 🤔🤡
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@deborahfreedman333 I agree. There is probably more going on here than meets the eye, geopolitically. However, this notwithstanding, if Vlad just backed off then we may be ok. He’s right to be wary, though. A majority of Ukrainians look west and want to be part of the NATO party, so on this basis, I can see why Putin may be wary when it comes to the West. However, my bottom line here is the very basic principle of democratic self-determination and existing as a sovereign state. On this basis, Vlad needs to pipe down, shut the fuck up, and let Ukraine get on with it.😳
3
-
Yeah, but here’s the truth: if we hadn’t taught people to believe in a random, arbitrary accident of birth as a key marker of their identity, none of this would have happened. Does a child born in Ukraine hate a child born in Russia on the basis of an accident of birth? No. Of course they fucking don’t. In my book that makes them wiser than we, adults, are, as they play with whomever: black, white, yellow, green, big, small, old, young etc. As Jesus said, (and I’m no Christian, but he was right about this one) observe them, look at how they live in the glory of the moment, without judgment. Until they hit 7, then they become monsters and judge everything! But the salient point is: never hitch your wagon to an accident of birth, for this way madness lies.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@reginageorge4 Btw, groomer, yer putative sense of religion is a fucking joke: John 13:34 “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.” You come across as the most bitter, frustrated (obviously), hateful, least-loving individual one could possibly imagine, groomer. When he returns, Jesus needs to have a stern word with you, groomer. Did you follow this ‘commandment’, groomer? I’ll let the evidence speak for itself, groomer. 😊
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Never got the ‘hate what another human does when it comes to their sexual preferences’ memo. Makes utterly no sense. I tend to dislike people for their ideas, their beliefs, their opinions, their dress-sense, their bad breath, their BO but not something over which they have utterly no say or control. It’s like dissing people with a different skin colour. Pointless. Not only pointless, but totally stupid and moronic, as no one chooses their skin colour, just as no one chooses their sexuality. But here’s the clincher for me: even if we did choose our skin colour and sexuality, it still wouldn’t bother me one iota that some random has a different skin colour or sexuality. The sexual business of consenting adults is simply no one else’s business. The sooner we can move beyond this primitive nonsense as a species, the better. To me, being homophobic is a bit like feeling resentful of someone digging Uranus because you’re not an astronomer! 🔭
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Criminalising homosexuality makes about as much logical sense as criminalising heterosexuality. After all, there is precisely nothing gays do that millions of heterosexuals the world over don’t do every day. Furthermore, the latter engage in these consenting acts (rightly) without fear of criminalisation. Moreover, even if a penis up an arse or in a mouth is the main issue here (and it seems to be), how on Earth, in that case, does that justify lumping in all the lesbians who never have and never will have anal sex, unless they get the dildos and strap-ons out? None of it makes rational sense in the cold light of day, which is precisely why it appeals to the darkest, basest, knee-jerk instincts in humanity.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Criminalising homosexuality makes about as much logical sense as criminalising heterosexuality. After all, there is precisely nothing gays do that millions of heterosexuals the world over don’t do every day. Furthermore, the latter engage in these consenting acts (rightly) without fear of criminalisation. Moreover, even if a penis up an arse or in a mouth is the main issue here (and it seems to be), how on Earth, in that case, does that justify lumping in all the lesbians who never have and never will have anal sex, unless they get the dildos and strap-ons out? None of it makes rational sense in the cold light of day, which is precisely why it appeals to the darkest, basest, knee-jerk instincts in humanity.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
“I might be what you groomers call ‘asexual’”. (Ijumpjudyy) Wow! 😮That’s interesting, groomer! Never thought you’d reveal your hand like that, groomer. K, you don’t dig sex and because you don’t dig sex you ban consenting adults, who do dig sex, from having sex, groomer!? I fear revealing that has put the final nail in your intolerant ⚰️, groomer! 😂 👍😉 Hey, groomer! I’m proud to be a cucumber hater and not be so silly, irrational, intolerant and thick as to ban cucumbers, groomer! 🤣🥒
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Never got the ‘hate what another human does when it comes to their sexual preferences’ memo. Makes utterly no sense. I tend to dislike people for their ideas, their beliefs, their opinions, their dress-sense, their bad breath, their BO but not something over which they have utterly no say or control. It’s like dissing people with a different skin colour. Pointless. Not only pointless, but totally stupid and moronic, as no one chooses their skin colour, just as no one chooses their sexuality. But here’s the clincher for me: even if we did choose our skin colour and sexuality, it still wouldn’t bother me one iota that some random has a different skin colour or sexuality. The sexual business of consenting adults is simply no one else’s business. The sooner we can move beyond this primitive nonsense as a species, the better. To me, being homophobic is a bit like feeling resentful of someone digging Uranus because you’re not an astronomer! 🔭
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
“I might be what you groomers call ‘asexual’”. (Ijumpjudyy) Wow! 😮That’s interesting, groomer! Never thought you’d reveal your hand like that, groomer. K, you don’t dig sex and because you don’t dig sex you ban consenting adults, who do dig sex, from having sex, groomer!? I fear revealing that has put the final nail in your intolerant ⚰️, groomer! 😂 👍😉 Hey, groomer! I’m proud to be a cucumber hater and not be so silly, irrational, intolerant and thick as to ban cucumbers, groomer! 🤣🥒 She also admitted this recently: “Imagine being an atheist.” Having previously denied her God credentials she scores yet another own 🥅! 🤡 😂
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
There is a direct correlation between countries which belong to the Commonwealth, and therefore have previously been under British rule, and countries that still have homophobic biphobic and/or transphobic legislature in their constitutions. 25% of the world’s population (2.4 billion people) currently live in a country belonging to the Commonwealth, however they make up a disproportionately large 50 per cent of countries that still criminalise homosexuality. There are currently 64 countries (out of 195) in the world that criminalise homosexuality. Of these 64, almost half (29) belong to the Commonwealth.
Africa
Algeria
Cameroon ✅
Chad
Comoros
Egypt
Eritrea
Eswatini (Swaziland) ✅
Ethiopia
Gambia ✅
Ghana ✅
Guinea
Kenya ✅
Liberia
Libya
Malawi ✅
Mauritania
Morocco
Nigeria ✅
Senegal
Sierra Leone ✅
Somalia
South Sudan
Sudan
Tanzania
Togo ✅
Tunisia
Uganda ✅
Zambia ✅
Zimbabwe ✅
Asia, including the Middle East
Afghanistan
Bangladesh ✅
Brunei ✅
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Kuwait
Lebanon
Malaysia ✅
Maldives ✅
Myanmar
Oman
Pakistan ✅
Palestine
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Sri Lanka ✅
Syria
Turkmenistan
United Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan
Yemen
Americas
Grenada ✅
Guyana ✅
Jamaica ✅
St Lucia ✅
St Vincent & the Grenadines ✅
Oceania
Kiribati ✅
Niue
Papua New Guinea ✅
Samoa ✅
Solomon Islands ✅
Tonga ✅
Tuvalu ✅
✅ Commonwealth member
The vast majority of the remaining 64 are majority Islamic. What does this prove? Well, organised religion plays a vital role in the criminalisation of homosexuality. However, the key takeaway for the purposes of this video, is that in Uganda, prior to the widespread introduction of Christianity (Uganda is currently 84% Christian/14% Muslim) homosexuality was largely tolerated and not legislated for within the various tribal denominations. At worst, in most cases, it was merely ignored. Yet here we have Museveni telling the ‘evil West’ to butt-out, when the criminalisation of homosexuality was brought in directly on the back of a Bible (…and a Quran!) by a bunch of Westerners! Hypocrisy? 🤦♂️
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Here’s what we’re dealing with, folks👉 “You know that most cases of FGM are consensual, right? Many people are raised in environments where this practice is normalised, so they don’t see any issue with it. They consent to it.” (Jegafud 🤡 🤦♂️)
Don’t be silly, son. Do you honestly think 12 year old girls in their right minds are going to willingly consent to having their genitals lopped off? That admission alone demonstrates where you are at. 🤦♂️Can you not think for yourself, for once, dude? I suggest to you, aged 12, that we chop off your cock for no reason. Do you consent to this? 🤦♂️
“Listen, hun, after school today me and your mother are going to take you to have a completely unnecessary medical procedure involving having your clitoris hacked off thereby leading to your being unable to have sexual pleasure ever and leading to the following possible complications:”
•severe pain
•excessive bleeding (haemorrhage)
•genital tissue swelling
•fever
•infections e.g., tetanus
•urinary problems
•wound healing problems
•injury to surrounding genital tissue
•shock
•vaginal problems (discharge, itching, bacterial vaginosis and other infections)
menstrual problems (painful menstruations, difficulty in passing menstrual blood, etc.)
•scar tissue and keloid
•sexual problems (pain during intercourse, decreased satisfaction)
•increased risk of childbirth complications (difficult delivery, excessive bleeding, caesarean section, need to resuscitate the baby, etc.) and newborn deaths
•need for later surgeries: for example, the sealing or narrowing of the vaginal opening (type 3) may lead to the practice of cutting open the sealed vagina later to allow for sexual intercourse and childbirth (deinfibulation). Sometimes genital tissue is stitched again several times, including after childbirth, hence the woman goes through repeated opening and closing procedures, further increasing both immediate and long-term risks
•psychological problems (depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, low self-esteem, etc.)
•death
“Now, darling, would you like to consent to this completely unnecessary procedure?” 🤦♂️
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@jegamespeed5399 No, it’s actually not the point. Believing something is ‘morally wrong’ doesn’t justify you intruding in others’ lives when it’s patently not clear it’s ‘morally wrong’ in the way murder and rape, we can all agree, are morally wrong. I have yet in my entire life to meet anyone who believes consenting adult gay sex is ‘morally wrong’ unless… unless they were religious. Ah, there’s the rub. Well, sorry m8, some of us just don’t uphold unverified, unverifiable invisible sky daddies and to call something ‘morally wrong’ on the basis of this doesn’t float. It doesn’t work like that. The point is not interfering in the private sex lives of consenting adults. It’s that simple. Aside from extreme cases where children may be produced of incestuous relations, I can think of no reason you, nor the state, should be policing consenting adults’ sex lives. Consenting gay sex is not affecting you directly in any way. You have no place policing it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It’s a process. It’s a process whereby gay men and women simply gain the right to have consensual adult sex free of fear of criminalisation involving fines, imprisonment or worse, wherever they are on the planet.
The following is a timeline list of when and where homosexuality was decriminalised. This list is interesting as it gives the lie, somewhat, to the idea that decriminalising homosexuality is a wholly (or even a mainly) ‘Western thing’, so apparently feared by lube-head here. To pick some examples at random to demonstrate this: Turkey decriminalised in 1858; Japan in 1882; Taiwan in 1912; Thailand in 1956… while it was as late as 1967 in England/Wales and, remarkably, even later in the country of my birth, Scotland, in 1981. Equally remarkably, it was as late as 1993 before it was decriminalised in Washington DC, another 10 years after this before all the states had decriminalised. Added to this is the notable fact that in the list where homosexuality has never been illegal, almost every single country, without exception, is non-Western.
•Never been illegal
Aruba, Netherlands
Benin
Burkina Faso
Cambodia
Central African Republic
Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Republic of the Congo
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Christmas Island, Australia
Curaçao Curaçao, Netherlands
Djibouti
Equatorial Guinea
French Polynesia, France
Indonesia
Ivory Coast
Laos
Madagascar
Mali
Mayotte, France
Federated States of Micronesia
New Caledonia, France
Niger
North Korea
Rwanda
Sint Maarten, Netherlands
South Korea
Philippines
Vietnam
Wallis and Futuna, France
•18th Century
1791: Andorra
France Kingdom of France (includes Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Réunion, San Barthélemy, Saint Martin, and Saint Pierre and Miquelon)
Haiti Saint-Domingue (Haiti)
1793: Monaco
1794: Luxembourg
1795: Belgium
1798: Canton of Geneva, Switzerland
Ticino, Switzerland
Vaud, Switzerland
Valais, Switzerland
•19th Century
1811: Netherlands
1822: Dominican Republic
El Salvador
1830: Brazil
1832: Bolivia
1853: Argentina
1858: Turkey
1864: San Marino
1869: Suriname
1871: Guatemala
Mexico
1882: Japan
1890: Italy
Vatican City
1899: Honduras
•20th Century
1912: Taiwan
1924: Peru
1933: Denmark (includes Greenland and Faroe Islands)
1932: Poland
1934: Uruguay
1940: Iceland
1942: Switzerland
1944: Sweden
1951: Greece
Jordan
Palestine
1956: Thailand
1961: Hungary
1962: Czechoslovakia
Illinois, United States
1967: England and Wales, United Kingdom
1968: Bulgaria
East Germany
1969: Canada
West Germany
1971: Austria
Connecticut, United States
Costa Rica
Finland
1972: Colorado, United States
Oregon, United States
Norway
1973: Delaware, United States
Hawaii, United States
Malta
North Dakota, United States
1974: Massachusetts, United States
Ohio, United States
1975: East Timor
New Hampshire, United States
New Mexico, United States
South Australia
1976: Australian Capital Territory
Bahrain
California, United States
Indiana, United States
Maine, United States
Washington (state), United States
West Virginia, United States
1977: Croatia
Montenegro
Slovenia
South Dakota, United States
Vermont, United States
Wyoming, United States
1978: Guam, United States
Iowa, United States
Nebraska, United States
New Jersey, United States
1979: Cuba
Spain
1980: American, United States
New York, United States
Pennsylvania, United States
1981: Colombia
Scotland, United Kingdom
Victoria, Australia
1982: Northern Ireland, United Kingdom
1983: Guernsey, United Kingdom
Northern Mariana Islands
Northern Territory, Australia
Portugal
Wisconsin, United States
1984: New South Wales, Australia
1985: Virgin Islands, United States
1986: New Zealand
1988: Israel
1989: Falkland Islands, United Kingdom
Liechtenstein
1990: Jersey, United Kingdom
Paraguay
Western Australia
1991: Bahamas
Abkhazia
Hong Kong
Queensland, Australia
South Ossetia
Ukraine
1992: Estonia
Isle of Man, United Kingdom
Kentucky, United States
Latvia
1993: Washington, D.C. District of Columbia, United States
Gibraltar, United Kingdom
Guinea-Bissau
Republic of Ireland
Lithuania
Mongolia
Nevada Nevada, United States
Norfolk Island, Australia
Russia
1994: Kosovo
Belarus
Bermuda Bermuda, United Kingdom
Serbia
1995: Albania
Moldova
1996: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Portuguese Macau
North Macedonia
Romania
Tennessee, United States
1997: China
Ecuador
Montana, United States
Tasmania, Australia
Venezuela
1998: Cyprus Cyprus
Georgia, United States
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Republika Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Rhode Island, United States
South Africa
Tajikistan
1999: Chile
Maryland, United States
2000: Akrotiri and Dhekelia, United Kingdom
Azerbaijan
Georgia (country)
•21st Century
2001: Anguilla, United Kingdom
Arizona, United States
Bosnia and Herzegovina
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands, United Kingdom
Minnesota, United States
Montserrat, United Kingdom
Saint Helena
Pitcairn Islands, United Kingdom
Turks and Caicos Islands, United Kingdom
2002: Arkansas, United States
Transnistria
2003: Armenia
Tokelau, New Zealand
United States (nationwide)
2004: Cape Verde
2005: Marshall Islands
2007: Nepal
Vanuatu
2008: Nicaragua
Panama
2010: Fiji
2012: Lesotho
São Tomé and Príncipe
2014: Northern Cyprus
Palau
2015: Mozambique
2016: Belize
Nauru
Seychelles
2018: India
Trinidad and Tobago
2019: Botswana
2020: Gabon
2021: Angola
Bhutan
2022: Antigua and Barbuda
Barbados
Singapore
Saint Kitts and Nevis
2023: Cook Islands, New Zealand
Mauritius
2024: Dominica
Namibia
3
-
“You know that most cases of FGM are consensual, right? Many people are raised in environments where this practice is normalised, so they don’t see any issue with it. They consent to it.” (Jegamespeed5399) 🤦♂️
Don’t be silly, son. Do you honestly think 12 year old girls in their right minds are going to willingly consent to having their genitals lopped off? That admission alone demonstrates where you are at. 🤦♂️Can you not think for yourself, for once, dude? I suggest to you, aged 12, that we chop off your cock for no reason. Do you consent to this? 🤦♂️
“Listen, hun, after school today me and your mother are going to take you to have a completely unnecessary medical procedure involving having your clitoris hacked off thereby leading to your being unable to have sexual pleasure ever and leading to the following possible complications:”
•severe pain
•excessive bleeding (haemorrhage)
•genital tissue swelling
•fever
•infections e.g., tetanus
•urinary problems
•wound healing problems
•injury to surrounding genital tissue
•shock
•vaginal problems (discharge, itching, bacterial vaginosis and other infections)
menstrual problems (painful menstruations, difficulty in passing menstrual blood, etc.)
•scar tissue and keloid
•sexual problems (pain during intercourse, decreased satisfaction)
•increased risk of childbirth complications (difficult delivery, excessive bleeding, caesarean section, need to resuscitate the baby, etc.) and newborn deaths
•need for later surgeries: for example, the sealing or narrowing of the vaginal opening (type 3) may lead to the practice of cutting open the sealed vagina later to allow for sexual intercourse and childbirth (deinfibulation). Sometimes genital tissue is stitched again several times, including after childbirth, hence the woman goes through repeated opening and closing procedures, further increasing both immediate and long-term risks
•psychological problems (depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, low self-esteem, etc.)
•death
“Now, darling, would you like to consent to this completely unnecessary procedure?” 🤦♂️
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Flunky000 I’m sure you can see how deeply inappropriate it is to police others’ consensual sex lives, Dikwad. Hell, most people I know don’t even wanna let others know about their sexuality, let alone having creepy weirdos like you, Dikwad, policing their ACTUAL sex lives through the state. It’s really is very simple, Dikwad. I know you have your transparent shield of religious stuff and whatever to defend you and hide behind, but I know loads of religious folk (very religious folk) who actually agree with me, Dikwad, when I simply say my sex life, your sex life and everybody’s sex life is quite simply nobody else’s business. It’s almost silly having to spell this out, Dikwad, doncha think? 😊
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@JonathanAnthonyAltieri It’s a bit unfair to compare Scotland to America in terms of size. Much fairer to make the European comparison. A fairer comparison to Scotland in terms of size would be a state like, say, Pennsylvania. So let’s do that: Philadelphia? Well, dear reader, I’ve visited that place and it’s actually rather depressing and bleak and ugly, notwithstanding it was your capital back in the day. Edinburgh is clearly the beauty (and just generally a more interesting place) here if we are making a fair comparison. And, as I said, the fair comparison for North America would be Europe in toto and, as I also said, we Europeans have literally hundreds of more beautiful cities than you North Americans. Even our relatively ‘ugly’ cities are still miles more attractive than the vast majority of your cities. New York? One of a kind but I wouldn’t call it beautiful. If we’re making a direct comparison London vs New York, then the former beats the latter for me in terms of pulchritude, and that’s quite something given a good part of it was razed by the Nazis! Hope this helps. 😊
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Jegamespeed: “If people should be allowed to act on their feelings, why stop with homosexuality? Why not allow bestiality, paedophilia, incest etc.?”
Ah, ye olde ‘homosexuality is the gateway drug to paedophilia and bestiality’ trope, beloved by those with no real argument. It apparently hasn’t crossed Jegameclown’s 🤡 tiny brain that homosexuality is consensual and involves adults. Paedophilia and bestiality aren’t and involve children and animals. As for incest, well, personally, if all parties are consenting adults and there is zero chance of offspring resulting, not sure why anyone should be messing here. Answers on a postcard, kids!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Africa is the only continent where decriminalization of homosexuality has not been widespread since the mid-twentieth century. Africa is also, traditionally, the POOREST (in 2024, the top 10 poorest countries were all African - Global Finance), LEAST LITERATE (in 2024, of the 10 most illiterate countries, 9 were in Africa - World Atlas), LEAST DEMOCRATIC (in 2023, of the 30 least democratic countries, 16 were in Africa, 11 were in Asia and 3 were in South America - Statista), MOST RELIGIOUS (in 2024, of the 10 most religious countries, 7 were in Africa - Ceoworld) and the MOST CORRUPT (in 2023, of the 20 most corrupt countries, 11 were in Africa - Statista) continent on the planet.
Coincidence? 🤷♂️
3
-
Yeah, but it’s clearly a politically calculated ‘honesty’ from the old dictator. He also clearly lied when he piffled and blustered: “I,I,I,I,I n,n,never knew what they did.” Yeah, right. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Check out the lovely ‘Mrs’ Museveni, though. Rather interesting, visually speaking. 👍😉
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
“You know that most cases of FGM are consensual, right? Many people are raised in environments where this practice is normalised, so they don’t see any issue with it. They consent to it.” (Jegamespeed5399) 🤦♂️
Don’t be silly son. Do you honestly think 12 year old girls in their right minds are going to willingly consent to having their genitals lopped off? 🤦♂️
“Listen, hun, after school today me and your mother are going to take you to have a completely unnecessary medical procedure involving having your clitoris hacked off thereby leading to your being unable to have sexual pleasure ever and leading to the following possible complications:”
•severe pain
•excessive bleeding (haemorrhage)
•genital tissue swelling
•fever
•infections e.g., tetanus
•urinary problems
•wound healing problems
•injury to surrounding genital tissue
•shock
•vaginal problems (discharge, itching, bacterial vaginosis and other infections)
menstrual problems (painful menstruations, difficulty in passing menstrual blood, etc.)
•scar tissue and keloid;
•sexual problems (pain during intercourse, decreased satisfaction)
•increased risk of childbirth complications (difficult delivery, excessive bleeding, caesarean section, need to resuscitate the baby, etc.) and newborn deaths
•need for later surgeries: for example, the sealing or narrowing of the vaginal opening (type 3) may lead to the practice of cutting open the sealed vagina later to allow for sexual intercourse and childbirth (deinfibulation). Sometimes genital tissue is stitched again several times, including after childbirth, hence the woman goes through repeated opening and closing procedures, further increasing both immediate and long-term risks
•psychological problems (depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, low self-esteem, etc.).
•death.
“Now, darling, would you like to consent to this completely unnecessary procedure?” 🤦♂️
3
-
There is a direct correlation between countries which belong to the Commonwealth, and therefore have previously been under British rule, and countries that still have homophobic biphobic and/or transphobic legislature in their constitutions. 25% of the world’s population (2.4 billion people) currently live in a country belonging to the Commonwealth, however they make up a disproportionately large 50 per cent of countries that still criminalise homosexuality. There are currently 64 countries (out of 195) in the world that criminalise homosexuality. Of these 64, almost half (29) belong to the Commonwealth.
Africa
Algeria
Cameroon ✅
Chad
Comoros
Egypt
Eritrea
Eswatini (Swaziland) ✅
Ethiopia
Gambia ✅
Ghana ✅
Guinea
Kenya ✅
Liberia
Libya
Malawi ✅
Mauritania
Morocco
Nigeria ✅
Senegal
Sierra Leone ✅
Somalia
South Sudan
Sudan
Tanzania
Togo ✅
Tunisia
Uganda ✅
Zambia ✅
Zimbabwe ✅
Asia, including the Middle East
Afghanistan
Bangladesh ✅
Brunei ✅
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Kuwait
Lebanon
Malaysia ✅
Maldives ✅
Myanmar
Oman
Pakistan ✅
Palestine
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Sri Lanka ✅
Syria
Turkmenistan
United Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan
Yemen
Americas
Grenada ✅
Guyana ✅
Jamaica ✅
St Lucia ✅
St Vincent & the Grenadines ✅
Oceania
Kiribati ✅
Niue
Papua New Guinea ✅
Samoa ✅
Solomon Islands ✅
Tonga ✅
Tuvalu ✅
✅ Commonwealth member
The vast majority of the remaining 64 are majority Islamic. What does this prove? Well, organised religion plays a vital role in the criminalisation of homosexuality. However, the key takeaway for the purposes of this video, is that in Uganda, prior to the widespread introduction of Christianity (Uganda is currently 84% Christian/14% Muslim) homosexuality was largely tolerated and not legislated for within the various tribal denominations. At worst, in most cases, it was merely ignored. Yet here we have Museveni telling the ‘evil West’ to butt-out, when the criminalisation of homosexuality was brought in directly on the back of a Bible (…and a Quran!) by a bunch of Westerners! Hypocrisy? 🤦♂️
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. (Richard Dawkins)
Amen. 🙏
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
“I might be what you groomers call ‘asexual’”. (Ijumpjudyy) Wow! 😮That’s interesting, groomer! Never thought you’d reveal your hand like that, groomer. K, you don’t dig sex and because you don’t dig sex you ban consenting adults, who do dig sex, from having sex, groomer!? I fear revealing that has put the final nail in your intolerant ⚰️, groomer! 😂 👍😉 Hey, groomer! I’m proud to be a cucumber hater and not be so silly, irrational, intolerant and thick as to ban cucumbers, groomer! 🤣🥒
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Act (2023) prescribes up to twenty years in prison for ‘promotion of homosexuality’, life imprisonment for ‘homosexual acts’, and the death penalty for ‘aggravated homosexuality’.
1. How, exactly, can you ‘promote’ homosexuality? This isn’t about trying to persuade people to become gay, as if you are trying to persuade people to vote for you, or persuade people to buy a new whizz-bang, fancy-pants vibrator (ijumpjudy has just put in her order - extra batteries included 😉); that’s impossible. It’s not like you can ‘catch’ homosexuality like you can catch a virus, any more than you can ‘catch’ heterosexuality. You are either gay or you aren’t, just as you are heterosexual, or you aren’t. So, primitively prescribing 20 years imprisonment for something you either are or aren’t no matter how much ‘promoting’ is done is bizarre, indeed. 🤦♂️
2. There are no such things as exclusively ‘homosexual acts’. If this term refers to anal/oral sex, then, spoiler alert: millions of heterosexuals engage in these acts, too, so to describe them as exclusively ‘homosexual acts’ makes zero sense. Even if we accept that giving/receiving a BJ or having anal sex is a ‘homosexual act’, you’re really going to imprison someone for life for this? 🤦♂️
3. ‘Aggravated homosexuality’ has the death penalty as its punishment and is described as an offence including ‘serial offenders, same-sex rape, sex in a position of authority or procured by intimidation, sex with persons older than seventy-five, sex with the disabled and mentally ill, and homosexual acts committed by a person with a previous conviction for homosexuality.’
Ok, let’s break this down:
•‘serial offenders’ - presumably this means people who just have consenting sex on many occasions. Death for this? 🤦♂️
•‘same-sex rape’ - as with heterosexual rape, this should obviously be criminalised, but I wouldn’t support death for it.
•‘sex in a position of authority or procured by intimidation’ - in the case of a position of authority, if the other person consents to the sex, I see no issue with it. If intimidation is involved and no consent given, then this should be criminalised.
•‘sex with persons older than 75’ - lol. I see absolutely no reason to criminalise someone for having sex with anyone who is above the age of consent. If that person is 75, 85 or 105, and they consent to the sex, then to institute the death penalty for this is hilariously irrational. 🤦♂️
•‘sex with the disabled and mentally ill’ - lol. If a disabled gay man or woman wants to have sex, where’s the fucking issue? 🤷♂️ Death for this? Yer having a fucking larff, aincha? 🤦♂️ Obviously, the mentally ill could be compromised when it comes to consent, so this needs sensitivity.
•‘homosexual acts committed by a person with a previous conviction for homosexuality’ - so, if someone has been convicted just once for, say, giving a BJ (which isn’t actually a ‘homosexual act’, as we’ve established there is no such thing) to his partner, and he’s caught doing it again, you kill him? Really? 🤦♂️
When you look closely at the Bill, it becomes increasingly ridiculous and barely believable that in 2024 we are criminalising people for simply having consensual adult sex. 🤦♂️
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Never got the ‘hate what another human does when it comes to their sexual preferences’ memo. Makes utterly no sense. I tend to dislike people for their ideas, their beliefs, their opinions, their dress-sense, their bad breath, their BO but not something over which they have utterly no say or control. It’s like dissing people with a different skin colour. Pointless. Not only pointless, but totally stupid and moronic, as no one chooses their skin colour, just as no one chooses their sexuality. But here’s the clincher for me: even if we did choose our skin colour and sexuality, it still wouldn’t bother me one iota that some random has a different skin colour or sexuality. The sexual business of consenting adults is simply no one else’s business. The sooner we can move beyond this primitive nonsense as a species, the better. To me, being homophobic is a bit like feeling resentful of someone digging Uranus because you’re not an astronomer! 🔭
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The criminalisation of homosexuality by the British during their colonisation of Uganda in the late 19th century has helped shape how modern-day Ugandans view homosexuality (a salient legacy of this is that today’s Uganda is 84% Christian, a Christianity introduced by the West). There is documentation of various cultures across the continent, including in pre-colonial Uganda, treating gender and sexuality as continuums rather than binaries. Furthermore, while non-conforming sexualities may have been frowned upon in certain communities, they were only actually criminalised by the colonial rulers. Like other former British colonies, Uganda chose to preserve the English legal system following its independence in 1962, including sodomy laws. In one sense, then, the colonial legacy of homophobia and its role in ‘civilising’ and attempting to morally de-value diverse practices of gender and sexuality across various indigenous populations that did not fall under imperial heteronormative and patriarchal structures lives on. In other words, hypocrite Museveni and his ilk are essentially just continuing and promulgating the views that were introduced by the colonialists in terms of criminalising homosexuality. He makes a great fanfare of calling out the ‘evil West’ but this whole criminalising of homosexuality in Uganda was a Western invention! 🤦♂️
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Africa is the only continent where decriminalization of homosexuality has not been widespread since the mid-twentieth century. Africa is also, traditionally, the POOREST (in 2024, the top 10 poorest countries were all African - Global Finance), LEAST LITERATE (in 2024, of the 10 most illiterate countries, 9 were in Africa - World Atlas), LEAST DEMOCRATIC (in 2023, of the 30 least democratic countries, 16 were in Africa, 11 were in Asia and 3 were in South America - Statista), MOST RELIGIOUS (in 2024, of the 10 most religious countries, 7 were in Africa - Ceoworld) and the MOST CORRUPT (in 2023, of the 20 most corrupt countries, 11 were in Africa - Statista) continent on the planet.
Coincidence? 🤷♂️
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Just a quick language update, guys and gals: I’m now officially fluent in 8 languages since my Catalan tutor, Pep, passed me at the fluency level. My Portuguese is close to fluency and I have a fair bit of Greek in me at this point. On this basis, I’m expecting to be officially fluent in 10 languages within the year! (Double figures! Yay!) Ty everyone for all your continuing support! It means so much. 👍 🏴 🏴 🇫🇷 🇪🇸 🇮🇹 🇩🇪 (🇵🇹 + 🇬🇷… pending fluency verification). I’m deeply sorry I have been so remiss with my posts recently, but you don’t get to octo-fluency level by frittering away yer time on YouTube typing sub-literate sh*t all day, like Mr Stilton, for example. Aye. I know, I know guys, you want more. But I’m a busy dude. People to meet, languages to learn. However, I will update in a few weeks’ time when I’m expecting to be approaching that magic language-decagon! (‘10’ for the sub-literates, which, let’s face it, is most of you! 😢 ) For anyone who has been adversely affected by the issues raised in this post there is an emergency contact hotline, the number of which sadly escapes me right now, alas. 🐵
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@zonie1953 Well, that’s interesting, as I have lived here and over there and my basic take on the US is stupendous natural scenery, but, in the main, incredibly bleak, ugly, soulless urban spaces. As to this latter, parts of Frisco and the old quarter of New Orleans get honourable exemptions. No, give me the endless layers of richness, history, urban beauty and culture of the Old World over the New any day of the week!
3
-
❄️ ⛄️ Yep. Crazy few days for you Yankees across the (frozen) Pond. Basking in relatively tropical weather here in Europe! 🌴 There is talk that during the winter months all State names will be changed accordingly: could soon be seeing ‘Blew Jersey’, ‘Thawaii’, ‘Georjackfrost’, ‘Pennsylweathervania’, ‘Kansice’, ‘Massachillsetts’, ‘Califognia’, ‘New Hampshiver’, ‘Wicesconsin’, ‘Texice’, ‘Mittensota’, ‘Windiana’, ‘Buryland’, ‘Frozen Riverginia’, ‘Godforsakentucky’, ‘Connecticold’, ‘Flurryda’, ‘Slideaho’, ‘Snowshoe York’, ‘Iowhiteout’, ‘Michighandwarmers’, ‘Tennessleet’, ‘New Mexicool’, ‘Alaskia’, ‘Chillinois’, ‘Rhode Iceland’, ‘Mainedeer’, ‘North/South Dacoata’, ‘Coolorado’, ‘Rawest Virginia’, ‘Wysnowing’, ‘Uthaw’, ‘North/South Barrelina’, ‘Arizsnowa’, ‘Nevada’ - no change needed as already means ‘snowy mountains’, ‘Montanavalanche’, ‘Shivermont’, ‘Missfury’, ‘Delaglare’, ‘Starkansas’, ‘Thawregon’, ‘Oklabomba’, ‘Washingtoboggan’, ‘Squallabama’, ‘Nebbbrrrraska’, ‘Snowhio’, ‘Louicyana’ and ‘Missiceslippy’! 🥶
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@zackharris8373 Like you, I’m also a sucker for this stuff, which kind of suggests I secretly think there is something to it. 🛸I’m in no doubt they are ‘out there’, on statistical probability alone, I just doubt they are ‘in here’, as we speak. That said, some of the videos I have seen recently did give me a slight shiver. What slightly bugs 🐜 me about the whole phenomenon, though, and particularly in the 🇺🇸, is how so much of this stuff is tagged onto Biblical prophecy. I listen to it, but am not convinced. Anyway, nice chatting, man. ✌️
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
When you nationalise the terms you are perpetuating the very thing that is causing humanity’s collective nightmare, along with organised religion. Don’t you see this? The trouble humanity has, and has always had, is one of self-definition. Before ‘human being’, first and foremost, we seem to want to put this or that random accident of birth, or this or that imagined daddy in the sky. Individually, this is not an issue. However, when we band together with others on the basis of random accidents of birth and imagined daddies in the sky, the trouble starts. Nietzsche looked at this in the eye and called it: In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. With an outlier like Putin, we need to develop a workable system of removing such dictators from positions of power. In the kindergarten, the staff don’t allow a single bully to ride roughshod over others as whim dictates. Why, then, do we allow this as adults? 👀
3
-
You’re right, of course. We have more double standards than a priest at a Boy Scout jamboree. Playing all moral and ethical to the people, but changing/bending these rules to fit our sneaky self-interest. As I see it, the trouble humanity has, and has always had, is one of self-definition. Before ‘human being’, first and foremost, we seem to want to put this or that random accident of birth, or this or that imagined daddy in the sky. Individually, this is not an issue. However, when we band together with others on the basis of random accidents of birth and imagined daddies in the sky, the trouble starts. Nietzsche looked at this in the eye and called it: In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. With an outlier like Putin, we need to develop a workable system of removing such dictators from positions of power. In the kindergarten, the staff don’t allow a single bully to ride roughshod over others as whim dictates. Why, then, do we allow this as adults? 👀
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I consider the lack of patriotism/nationalism one of the most refreshing aspects of the UK. I’ve never understood this taking pride in an accident of birth. It’s akin to my taking pride in my shoe size or eye colour. It’s that level of irrational and illogical. I had no say in the matter, so why am I taking some ‘unearned credit’ for a random, arbitrary event I had no intrinsic say in? The difference with
nationalism/patriotism is their massive danger for the continued existence of our species. It all links in with the concomitant ideas around ‘taking offence’. For me, the greatest problem humanity faces, and has always faced, is the one of ‘taking offence’. Note ‘taking’. No one can be offended against their will. You are fully complicit in the act of ‘being offended’. The only long-term solution to this is obvious. Train oneself to not be offended. By anything. Don’t hitch yourself so tightly to this or that identity (family, tribe, nation, race, religion, sex, sports team etc) such that when someone else says something, anything, about the aforementioned it will be impossible for you to take offence, quite simply as you have refused to subsume so much of your identity in the perceived target another attacks. 😳
3
-
3
-
@teuzza23 I read this when I was younger, and I haven’t read anything better as to how to live a ‘good life’ : This is what you shall do; Love the earth and sun and the animals, despise riches, give alms to every one that asks, stand up for the stupid and crazy, devote your income and labor to others, hate tyrants, argue not concerning God, have patience and indulgence toward the people, take off your hat to nothing known or unknown or to any man or number of men, go freely with powerful uneducated persons and with the young and with the mothers of families, read these leaves in the open air every season of every year of your life, re-examine all you have been told at school or church or in any book, dismiss whatever insults your own soul, and your very flesh shall be a great poem and have the richest fluency not only in its words but in the silent lines of its lips and face and between the lashes of your eyes and in every motion and joint of your body. (Whitman)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I prefer Bilbao to San Sebastián, I think. The latter is overrated, based on its magical setting. The city itself is just a bunch of unprepossessing apartment blocks, save for the two and a half streets and Plaza Consti. that make up the jejune Old Town. Bilbao has more heft, and its (also small) old core is more appealing. I have always been of the opinion, against the overwhelming tide of favourable opinion, that if you picked up San Sebastián and plonked it down 200 miles inland, it would be what it is: a rather nondescript, faceless city architecturally. San Sebastián is a city saved by its setting. Best Basque city of all, in my opinion, is the not-on-the-radar Vitoria. It’s a glorious old unspoiled ensemble with a couple of world-class plazas.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Yeah, but our furthest out object, Voyager 1, is ‘only’ currently 14 billion miles away from Earth having been launched in 1977, whereas Proxima Centauri, our nearest star, is 4.22 light years away, or in other words, using current technology, what would take us 6,300 years to reach. This sheer scale of the Universe, for me, makes it nigh-on impossible that we have been visited by extraterrestrial beings or crafts. However, given the 200 billion trillion stars in the known Universe, I don’t for one moment, simply on the balance of statistical probability, doubt that they are ‘out there’; just not ‘in here’.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
That the planet is warming and warming rather alarmingly quickly in historical terms is clear. Even anecdotally, without the data this is obvious. The salient issue here is that for the past 100 years we have hitched our economies to fossil fuel burning but I do wish people would stop talking about ‘climate change’. The climate has ‘changed’ for about 4 billion years when this 3rd rock from the sun emerged. The real issue is ‘global warming’, and how much humankind is complicit in this warming. That the planet is warming, and warming rather alarmingly rapidly, is indubitable. What’s not quite as indubitable is how much human activity is contributing to this. On balance, having looked at the evidence, I happen to think that humans are significantly contributing to global warming through fossil fuel burning. Given this, it makes utter sense to phase out fossil fuels. With this caveat: we must do it sensibly. They will be needed for some time to come as the transition to renewables is made. Who knows? Given that we are currently in an inter-glacial period, 500 years down the line when we have stopped using fossil fuels, the planet might start a rapid cooling trend leading to that ever-promised next Ice Age, and there might be a desperate clamour to start burning fossil fuels as quickly as possible!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Aside from being a simple battle for national self-determination in the face of an autocratic aggressor (notwithstanding the very real intra-Ukrainian tensions), this whole war has been a very real question to every single one of us. It’s directly asking us to make a choice about whether we uphold basic non-negotiable liberal values such as individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), pluralistic liberal democracy, secularism, the rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion or, alternatively, we uphold illiberal values such as violation of individual rights (including violation of civil and human rights), illiberal autocracy, abuse of the law, economic and political servitude beholden to dictatorship, little to no freedom of speech, censorship of the press and media more widely, and lack of freedom to worship the Gods of your choice or no God at all. Given this binary choice I, for one, know which side I’m backing.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Reckon if Putin wins Luhansk, Donetsk, Mariupol, Melitopol, Kherson, Odessa and Crimea permanently, he’ll be happy with that. Sure, Ukraine won’t be happy with this and it may be dangerous for future Russian incursions elsewhere if they get away with essentially what is now Eastern Ukraine. However, Ukraine, at some point, may just have to accept this state of affairs.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@alexiveperez4687 Fair point. But I’m willing to bet, albeit only from anecdotal experience, that 50+% of Barcelonais speak Catalan, if not as a first language, then as a strong second back-up. Last time I was in the city, it seemed like the de facto language ‘setting’, as it were, was Catalan, and this particularly in the under 35s. Spanish was only reverted to when they realised I was drawing a blank in Catalan. Also, I have met dozens of non-Catalan Spaniards over the years (I’m old) who all, almost to a man and woman, had stories to tell about how they were made to feel outsiders in Barcelona if they spoke Castilian Spanish only. Language is power, after all; this fact is well known, and one of the easiest ways to assert identity, power, and that feeling of ‘this is who I am’ is through language and also, accents. Human beings judge, hence Jesus’ famous injunction not to do so (I’m agnostic, incidentally, but it’s apposite here), and the most obvious way we all judge others, after personal visual appearance, is how others speak.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ControlledCha0s Austen ain’t for everyone, I get that. I once suggested to a friend that they read some Austen; he got stuck on p.4 and muttered something about ‘watching paint dry’ being a preferable activity to enduring/reading Austen. I never did trust that old cliche, though, since it was famously said of the movies of Eric Rohmer (in another movie, Night Moves , I think) and those, in my humble opinion, couldn’t be further from the truth of ‘watching paint dry’. Yes, as Austen herself said, in Emma funnily enough: One half of the world cannot understand the pleasures of the other. Now, take me and video games, for example; I’d rather sit through Titanic 10 times consecutively, than waste a minute of my life on such nonsense. Of course, half the world will disagree, a la Austen.
3
-
@ControlledCha0s The thought of having to read an Austen cover to cover used to bring me out in hives until, one year, I took an Eng. Lit. course; the book was Emma, and to my great surprise, it was an utter, witty, clever, insightful delight! She instantly became, and remains, one of my favourite writers. I never did do the 100 Books You Must Read … thing, but I did do the 1001 Movies You Must See … back in the day; all I can say is I’ll never get those 3 hours back after watching/enduring Titanic .
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@5:00 This guy is just falling into the trap of ‘things were much better in my day’. I’m not much younger than him and I’m here to tell him they weren’t, in case he’s forgotten. On balance, I consider the Internet and the democratisation of opinion thereby, has been a boon for humanity. The main drawback for me is the drastic deterioration in individual/collective attention spans as users all look to be distracted by the next ‘hit’. However egregious this fact is for me, it is far outweighed by the way the Internet has opened up all opinion to virtually everyone on the planet, including those in countries mired in acute poverty where a cellphone is often atop each person’s ‘hierarchy of needs’, as it is in affluent areas. This man, while I respect his opinion, is completely ignoring the multifarious positives of an Internet-world in favour of, dare I say, not moving with the times. After all, there were similar misgivings about how books would ‘corrupt’ when they became available to a mass readership, and similarly with television, where some commentators presaged the collapse of civilisation as we know it when that came along. It was ever thus, for back in the day even Socrates was looking askance at the youth of his day as they, as he saw it, indulged in idle chatter (for ‘idle chatter’ read ‘Internet chat’) and displayed bad manners and disrespect for elders (for ‘bad manners’ and ‘disrespect’ read constant phone use to the neglect of much else). Surely, each of us should summon the moral confidence of Socrates as he wandered around the market and simply declared: ‘how much I can live without’. In other words, this man has looked at the market of 2022 and, like Socrates, has decided to spurn some of its enticements, but he really has no right to deny these to others or to more than suggest that just because the Internet and cellphones do nothing for him, this does not mean that other people don’t find them useful and beneficial. My feeling is that he just resents not being able to attune to the signs of his times, and he comes across as a man out of his era, and therefore appears curmudgeonly and faintly ridiculous. 💻
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@rehan2118 That’s not my point; my point is that humans are tribal, birds of a feather etc etc. Sunak has quite literally nothing in common with your average voter in Newcastle, or Barnsley, or Gosport, for that matter. For all the UK being a Parliamentary Democracy (lol), and not a Presidential system, we all know that most (all?) Brits do place quite a high emphasis on the leader of the party they vote for (notwithstanding all the policy issues). It’s the basic pub test: The Conservatives won seats in hitherto unthinkable places (for the Tories) at the last election. Why? Well, in large part (but certainly not wholly), they warmed to Johnson, and yes, for all his faults (perhaps because of them), many could imagine shooting the breeze with him over a swift half. Sunak, however, has none of this going for him. I deeply doubt that many of those who voted Tory last time will vote Tory next time if Sunak is PM. Or Truss, come to that, as she is hardly much more ‘relatable’ than Sunak. Hence why Labour may have a genuine chance, notwithstanding their bland, undefined presence as we speak.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The key issue for many European people isn’t immigration per se (most people I know have no particular problem with strictly controlled legal immigration); it’s mass Islamic immigration that is the problem for many, including many left of centre voters. Just a couple of weeks ago, we had an Islamic dude wanting a Scottish island all to himself and his followers as an ‘Islamic caliphate’. Seriously, I’m old enough to remember when stories like this would’ve been an April Fool’s joke! As a secular agnostic, I’m constantly amazed at just how carefree western, secular, liberal democracies are when it comes to importing an ideology diametrically opposed to liberal democracy. Islam is political (‘Islam is politics or it is nothing.’ ~ Ayatollah Khomeini). It wants control of the reins. At the current rate, the UK is projected to be 17% Islamic in 2 decades. Sweden, astonishingly, is projected to be 30% Islamic by 2050. A full third of Swedes will be Muslims. With numbers like that, Europe can expect some interesting times ahead.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@TRUEBIOLOGYMATTERS Frankly, I can’t quite believe you are operating under the theory that the Earth is flat. I work with science in these matters and the overwhelming credible scientific evidence points to a spinning ellipsoid Earth.
1. Watch a ship sail off to sea
Without being in the sky, it is impossible to see the curvature of the Earth. However, you can always see a demonstration of this if you visit a harbour or any place with a wide-open view of the water.
If you are able to watch a ship sail off to sea, watch its mast and flag as it fades off into the distance. You will notice that, in fact, it does not "fade off into the distance" at all; instead, you will see its mast and flag appear to slowly sink. The ship sailed beyond the point at which you would see it. Just to be sure, bring a pair of binoculars with you so that you can see even farther off into the distance.
It's as if you're watching it go over to the other side of a hill. This phenomenon can only be explained by a sphere-shaped planet.
2. Watch a lunar eclipse
Solar eclipses get all the attention, but if you are able to catch a glimpse of a lunar eclipse, you can see evidence that the Earth is, indeed, round. Here's how it works: Earth passes between the moon and sun, so that the sun projects Earth’s shadow onto the Moon in the night sky. You've probably seen a partial lunar eclipse without even noticing it; if the moon looks orange, that's a sign of a lunar eclipse. If you've ever seen a total lunar eclipse, you probably noticed that the shadow did not look like this. A round shadow crossed over a round object. This does not sound like a thing that would happen if we were on a plane with all of the celestial bodies simply hovering overhead—or, perhaps more asinine, if the sun were orbiting Earth and not vice versa.
3. Climb a tree
Imagine a vast plane with but one tree smack in the middle. If the earth were flat, your vision would extend exactly as far while standing at the base of the tree as it would when at the top of the tree. However, the farther you climb, the farther your line of sight will extend to the horizon. That's because parts of Earth that were concealed from view by its curvature are now revealed because your position has changed. Back to the vast plane. The naked eye can see objects that are millions of miles away in space. Theoretically, with a clear line of sight on a clear night, one would also be able to see bright lights from far-away cities. That this is not possible is further evidence of a round, not flat, Earth
4. Travel through, or even within, different time zones
According to a 2008 paper in Applied Optics by David K. Lynch, the curvature of the earth becomes somewhat visible at an elevation of 35,000 feet (with a >60° field of view) and more easily visible at an elevation of 50,000 feet. So if you're on the right commercial flight, you might be able to see the curvature of the earth with your own two eyes.
In the event that you're not high enough, though, you can still experience the curvature of the earth another way. For example, if you were to fly all the way around the world, you'd find that it would be nighttime in part of the world and daytime in another part. In that way, the existence of time zones itself is proof that the Earth is round.
Taken another way, you wouldn't even need to travel through different time zones. Time zones are wide enough that you will see the sun rising and/or setting later in the western part of a time zone than in the eastern part. According to the Farmers' Almanac, the sun will rise and set roughly four minutes later for every 70 miles you drive from east to west. If you wanted to combine this experiment with the previous one, you could note how much more of Earth you can see when you begin your ascent into the air than you can while you are sitting on the tarmac waiting to take off.
5. Watch a sunset
Pick a nice spot from which you can watch a sunset (we'll call this point A). Ideally, you'd have a clear horizon in front of you, and behind you would be some sort of elevated point that you can quickly access (a hill, a building with at least two floors, or perhaps the aforementioned tree; we'll call this point B).
Watch the sunset from point A, and once the sun is out of sight, hurry on over to point B. With the added elevation provided by point B, you should be able to see the sun above the horizon. If Earth were flat, the sun would not be visible at any elevation once it had set. Because Earth is round, the sun will come back into your line of sight.
If you don't have a hill, you could even try lying on your stomach to watch the sunset and then standing up to get a higher line of sight.
6. Measure shadows across the country
Pick two locations that are some distance apart (at least a couple hundred miles from each other and on the same meridian). Grab two sticks or dowels (or other objects) of equal length, two tape measures, and a friend. Each of you will take one stick/dowel/object and one tape measure to your location, stick the object into the ground, and measure the shadow. (For accuracy, you should both take your measurements at the same time of day.)
On a flat Earth, the shadow that is cast by each would be of the same length. However, if you and your friend compare notes, you'll find that one shadow was longer than the other. That's because, due to the curvature of Earth, the sun will hit one part of Earth at one angle and another part of Earth at a different angle even at the same time of day.
This experiment has been around since about 240 B.C., when Greek mathematician Eratosthenes compared the shadows cast in both Syene—now Aswan, Egypt—and Alexandria on the summer solstice. Eratosthenes had learned of a well in Syene where once a year on the summer solstice, the sun would illuminate the entire bottom of the well and tall buildings and other objects would not cast a shadow. However, he noticed that shadows were being cast on the summer solstice in Alexandria, so he measured the angle of the shadow and found it to be an angle of about 7.2°.
7. Google "International Space Station photos"
Seriously, just look at some of the amazing photos you’ll find. There appears to be quite the curvature there.
Now if you’d like to provide evidence to back your flat-Earth theory, I’d be grateful.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@EvsEntps You may poke fun at the Irish Republicans for being so anti-English but to be fair, as far as I can see, the Irish have rather a lot to be angry about with the English historically. First they endured the Scottish Plantations over 100 years which involved the confiscation of Irish-owned land by the English Crown and the colonisation of land by British (mainly Scottish) Protestant settlers into a Catholic territory. Unsurprisingly, the Irish fought back. Two Desmond Rebellions (1569-73;1579-83) to fight against the extension of English governance over the province. Battle of Clontibret (1595) fought against the British. Ditto Battle of the Yellow Ford (1598). The Nine Years’ War (1593-1603) fought English rule in Ireland. The 1641 Rebellion occurred when Irish Catholics were being threatened by the expansion of the anti-Catholic English Parliament and Scottish Planters and they rebelled against English and Protestant domination. The 1798 Irish Rebellion was a major uprising against British rule in Ireland. The Irish wanted an end to anti-Catholic discrimination, greater Irish self-governance and to roll back the Plantations. The 1803 Rebellion of Irish Republicans was against, you’ve guessed it, British rule in Ireland. I think you can spot a theme here. The famous 1916 Easter Rising had the aim of establishing an independent Irish Republic, with the hope of finally ending British colonial rule. And so on, right up to the 1960s when the Civil Rights movement challenged the inequalities and discrimination against ethnic Irish Catholics perpetrated by the Ulster Protestant community. So, with this snapshot of Irish history, I return to my OP that began this whole thread: if the British had kept their nose out of other people’s business, then none of this would have obtained.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@roviannematovu3756 Yeah, I just don’t have an intrinsic problem with this. If a homosexual-themed play invited only gays for one night, I’d be fine; if a feminist-themed play invited only women for one night, I’d be fine; if a trans-themed play invited only trans people for one night, I’d be fine; and to be honest, if some play that had a theme of white racist oppression in it invited only white people for one night, I’d be fine. Sometimes, I feel some of these things are blown out of all proportion. As I said in my OP, my cynical suspicion is that this is, more than anything, a publicity stunt to get bums on seats!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Why do so many other developed nations not have America’s baleful gun culture? Germany, the UK, Japan, for example, don’t seem to have this terrible issue with gun crime, and yet there is relative peace in terms of general society, and certainly mass killings are rare. America needs to seriously look at its Second Amendment. There are only three countries that have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms: Mexico, Guatemala, and the United States. Although Mexico and Guatemala both have a constitutional right to bear arms, the US is in a league of its own simply because it is the only country without restrictions on gun ownership in its constitution. After the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, it inspired other countries around the world to provide their citizens with the right to own guns. However, only 15 constitutions (in nine countries) ever included an explicit right to bear arms. They are Bolivia, Costa Rica, Colombia, Honduras, Nicaragua, Liberia, Guatemala, Mexico, and the US. All of those countries, excluding Mexico, the US, and Guatemala, have since rescinded the constitutional right to bear arms. So, America is the outlier here in terms of citizens’ rights to bear arms. Does it want to continue this, and put up with its horrible mass killings? Or does it want to consider repealing the Second Amendment, thereby allowing the average American citizen to breathe that much easier in the ‘land of the free’?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
What’s interesting, and actually quite hopeful, about this whole farrago, notwithstanding the murky deceit and dodge betrayed by Johnson, is just how seriously the nation takes this. In other parts of the world, perhaps most other parts of the world, what Johnson has done would be seen as extraordinarily pettifogging in the grand scheme of things, but no, us Brits, with our sense of ‘fair play’, see this as actually very important, and for this reason: it’s about the larger principle, not the ostensible small-fry crime itself. And that gives me hope.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Isla Bryson? Well, it’s now more like Isla Byeson. 👋 For a few years, at least. Can we just get this straight once and for all? Humans cannot change sex, which is determined at fertilization (genotype) and during embryonic development (phenotype). People may change many features of their lives, such as their interests, hobbies, diet, friends or careers. However, some facts are unalterable. A person’s genetic inheritance, their biological sex, is an immutable characteristic. This doesn’t mean to say a person cannot ‘identify’ as a man when biologically a woman, or a woman when biologically a man. However, this is no different to my ‘identifying’ as a pig, or a snake, or a fish, when all my biological wiring says I’m a human being.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Until, and if, this younger guy comes out publicly and gives his side of the story, I refuse to join the Schofield witch-hunt. The man himself I find meh, but I was always taught, until all the evidence has been heard you do not rush to judgment. Also, I find it interesting there is no NDA: so, if I were an unwilling victim of “grooming” I think I would go public (even under cover of anonymity) and let the world know about it. Here’s my theory, for what it is worth: these 2 met when this guy was clearly underage. They had verbal contact. Schofield may have had unholy thoughts but knew he couldn’t act on them. When the guy was “of age” they had a consensual affair. Now, if this is the case, absolutely no crime has been committed and we all just need to move on from this staggeringly boring story.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@teri_ccc5160 Ok, IN MY OPINION (and the opinion of just about every other person I know), this law is clearly ridiculous and I’ll tell you why I think that:
Laws, for me, should at the very least, involve some kind of victim. 2 blokes kissing harms no one. Offends many, yes, but harms no one. There are no victims. That’s why I see this as primitive, and on that basis I’ll call it out, and if we had a law here outlawing 2 men kissing in public I’d call that out too. So this is nothing to do with where this is happening. Just for the record, it is happening for the usual boring reason: organised religion. About 99% of the people I meet who have an an animus towards homosexuality, invariably uphold an unverified, unverifiable invisible sky daddy. Why? Because there is no rational reason why homosexuality should be criminalised, or even disliked.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
A big part of the uproar here, aside from half-naked men in stripper heels swinging around provocatively on ropes in a school classroom in front of pre-teens, is what is said surrounding ‘gender ideology’ when drags take the class. It’s clearly agenda-based. Can we just get this straight (pun intended) once and for all? Humans cannot change biological sex, which is determined at fertilization (genotype) and during embryonic development (phenotype). People may change many features of their lives, such as their interests, hobbies, diet, friends or careers. However, some facts are unalterable. A person’s genetic inheritance, their biological sex, (not culturally-determined gender), is an immutable characteristic. No amount of ‘gender-reassignment’ can alter the fact that if you were born with XY sex chromosomes, you will die with XY sex chromosomes, and if you were born with XX sex chromosomes, you will die with XX sex chromosomes. Most, but not all, people fall into one of these two biologically-determined sex categories. Hermaphroditism is rare but should be noted here. As is XX male syndrome, but even in these cases, their own biological chromosomal inheritance cannot be altered. A hermaphrodite cannot biologically ‘unhermaphrodite’ themselves. None of the foregoing means to say a person cannot choose to ‘identify’ as a man when biologically a woman, or a woman when biologically a man. It’s a free world, after all. And it also doesn’t mean to say a fella can’t don a frock or a woman can’t waltz around in a well-fitted suit and tie. Wear what you want. However, identifying as one of the supposed 73 ‘genders’ is no different to my ‘identifying’ as a pig, or a snake, or a fish, when all my unalterable biological wiring says I’m a human being.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Yeah, yeah, but Oliver just falls into the trap of being one of the tribalists on the right reacting against the tribalists on the left. Whenever the topic of climate change/global warming comes up, as someone neither particularly right nor particularly left politically, I despair at how tribalised and polarised this debate becomes with each camp ensconced in their respective corners, equally convinced that their case is watertight. As ever with these things (and the reason I’m a centrist in almost everything), the truth lies somewhere in the middle. One of the most reasoned and balanced paragraphs I have ever read about this topic is the following from Stephen Pinker:
If the emission of greenhouse gases continues, the Earth’s average temperature will rise to at least 1.5°C above the preindustrial level by the end of the 21st century, and perhaps to 4°C above that level or more. That will cause more frequent and more severe heat waves, more floods in wet regions, more droughts in dry regions, heavier storms, more severe hurricanes, lower crop yields in warm regions, the extinction of more species, the loss of coral reefs (because the oceans will be both warmer and more acidic), and an average rise in sea level of between 0.7 metres and 1.2 metres from both the melting of land ice and the expansion of seawater. (Sea level has already risen almost eight inches since 1870, and the rate of the rise appears to be accelerating.) Low-lying areas would be flooded, island nations would disappear beneath the waves, large stretches of farmland would no longer be arable, and millions of people would be displaced. The effects could get still worse in the 22nd century and beyond, and in theory could trigger upheavals such as a diversion of the Gulf Stream (which would turn Europe into Siberia) or a collapse of the Antarctic ice sheets. A rise of 2°C is considered the most that the world could reasonably adapt to, and a rise of 4°C, in the words of a 2012 World Bank report, “simply must not be allowed to occur.”
The planet is warming. Fact. Humans (according to the overwhelming scientific consensus) are the principal cause of this warming over the past couple of centuries through fossil fuel burning. Now, given this, and given the consequences eloquently outlined by Pinker, we have to collectively decide whether we want to continue on this trajectory or not. For me, given the data, and given the projected consequences contingent upon that data, it makes utter sense to phase out fossil fuels. With this caveat: we must do it sensibly. They will be needed for some time to come as the transition to renewables is made. Who knows? Given that we are currently in an interglacial period, 500 years down the line when we have stopped using fossil fuels, the planet might start a rapid cooling trend leading to that ever-promised next Ice Age, and there might be a desperate clamour to start burning fossil fuels as quickly as possible!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Huh? 🤔 Have you read your Koran lately? You must have a different, bowdlerised copy to mine which says: (9:5) “And when the forbidden months have passed, kill the idolaters wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat, then leave their way free. Surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.”
Now call me “modern”, but I refuse to put one ounce of my faith and mental energy in a book which explicitly tells me to “kill the idolaters”.
The sooner humanity can get beyond these primitive, barbaric texts penned by men thousands of years ago, the better.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Lovely Islam at it again. As a lifelong agnostic, I have very little time for any organised religion. However, the thing that should be said is that I feel zero threat from any organised religion, bar one. If I were a public figure and publicly castigated Jesus, or Moses, or Krishna, or Buddha, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it’s very likely nothing would happen to me. If I publicly slagged off Muhammad, it’s quite likely there’d be a backlash and I’d be watching my back for the rest of my life. That’s the difference. Just ask Salman Rushdie or the Batley teacher who, btw, didn’t even criticise Muhammad; he just showed a damn picture! Imagine living in a society where certain people are so offended by a cartoon, they threaten death to the person who showed it! If certain people are so ‘offended’ by a cartoon, then it’s time to question the belief, not the cartoon. It seems Islam is so trigger-sensitive it can’t take honest criticism, when it’s just a bunch of manmade ideas like all the rest. Never let anyone tell you it’s ‘racist’ or a ‘hate-crime’ to criticise Islam. Islam is a belief-system held by people of multifarious races. Islam seems to think it’s entitled to a free pass when it comes to scrutiny. If Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Spaghettiism, etc. are subject to criticism, then Islam is too.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Although Russia is an aggressor for sure here, it’s hardly been unprovoked, and this is really a Civil War (particularly from Putin’s point of view). NATO reneging on its agreement not to expand post 1989 has provoked Putin. Casual flouting of 2014 Minsk agreements not to aggress against pro-Russian Ukrainians in the east, leading to the loss of about 14,000 has provoked Putin. The 2014 coup having much evidence (surprise! surprise!) of the paw prints of the CIA\USA has provoked Putin. Zelensky has publicly expressed a desire to acquire nuclear weapons, understandably spooking Moscow and thereby provoking Putin. There’s also the stench of corrupt family Biden deals with Ukraine, as well, which might explain sleepy Joe’s reluctance to get directly involved here. For now. Add to this Putin’s statement that the dissolution of the Soviet Empire was the ‘most tragic geopolitical event of the 20th century’, along with his belief in the greater mother Russia project and bringing the recalcitrant (as he sees them) Ukrainians back into the Slavic familial bosom and you have a perfect storm in which Putin feels justified in rolling his tanks into another sovereign, self-governing territory. He’s deluded in doing this, of course, as most Ukrainians want nothing to do with him, and rightly so. None of the above makes what Putin is doing right, but it makes it a little more understandable from Putin’s/Russia’s point of view.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Gorbyrev I’ve just checked Jacobabad’s weather for the next fortnight and here are the forecast temps: 46°, 48°, 48°, 47°, 47°, 46°, 49°, 49°, 48°, 49°, 48°, 49°, 51°. Now I don’t know about you Mark, but if humans through fossil-fuel burning activity are significantly contributing to the warming of the planet (as 99% of the scientific consensus is agreed upon), doesn’t it behove us to decrease this fossil fuel use? As I said, add another 3°, possibly 5° at this rate and by the end of the century you’re talking temperature norms of 55° in certain latitudes! Not to mention the huge sea-ice melt which is currently predicted to raise sea levels by at least a metre by 2100. I’m with you on technological solutions to human issues, but surely we can act a bit before we have to take these technological solutions and literally fry and drown huge swathes of this planet out of human liveable existence.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
That the planet is warming and warming rather alarmingly quickly in historical terms is clear. Even anecdotally, without the data, this is obvious. The issue here is that for the past 200/300 years we have hitched our economies to fossil fuel burning but I do wish people would stop talking about climate change .The climate has changed for about 4 billion years when this 3rd rock from the sun emerged. The real issue is global warming and how much humankind is complicit in this warming. That the planet is warming, and warming rather alarmingly rapidly, is indubitable. What’s not quite as indubitable is how much human activity is contributing to this. On balance, having looked at the evidence, I happen to think that humans are significantly contributing to global warming through fossil fuel burning. Given this, it makes utter sense to phase out fossil fuels. With this caveat: we must do it sensibly. They will be needed for some time to come as the transition to renewables is made. Who knows? Given that we are currently in an interglacial period, 500 years down the line when we have stopped using fossil fuels, the planet might start a rapid cooling trend leading to that ever-promised next Ice Age, and there might be a desperate clamour to start burning fossil fuels as quickly as possible!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Jordan Peterson’s 12 rules for life - an appraisal.
Stand up straight with your shoulders straight. Unless you’re a peeping Tom and need to keep below that wall, otherwise that gorgeous, undressing next-door neighbour may spot you.
Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping. In other words, pick up your own smelly socks, don’t litter, and make your own fucking bed!
Befriend people who want the best for you. Well, this rests on your judgement of others’ character. If that’s shit, you’re fucked.
Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not the useless person you are today. This one totally contradicts the whole idea of self-improvement, for if I’m more useless today than I was yesterday, why am I even trying to self-improve?!
Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them. Well, this assumes that you’re such an insane parental control freak with such a fascistic sense of keeping another in order that it’s not even worth considering, if only to save your own soul. Besides, kids need to make their own mistakes, so tough-titty if the parents can’t take this.
Set your house in order before criticising the world. Well, if you’re a saint, perhaps. If you’re a messy flesh and blood human being then criticising the world is what gets most of us through the day, if the drugs aren’t working.
Pursue what is meaningful, not what is expedient. Yeah, but that makes the enormous, unfounded assumption that any of this means anything whatsoever.
Tell the truth, or at least don’t lie. I’m sorry, but that time my mother caught my porn stash under the bed, I had to lie and pin it on my twin brother, Tommy. Sometimes, lying just is the best policy and those who say otherwise are just liars.
Assume the person you are listening to knows something you don’t. Ok. But this one falls down when it comes to my bank PIN number.
Be precise in your speech. What ‘precise’ in one’s speech like Mr Jordan ‘why use 1 word when 21 will do?’ Peterson? Give me the conciseness of a Sam Harris any day. I’m sure Adam Sandler will concur.
Do not bother children while they are skateboarding. Unless, that is, they are skateboarding all over your prize flowerbeds; then you can not only ‘bother’ them, but collar them and let them feel your hot garlicky breath on their cheeks.
Pet a cat when you encounter one in the street. Unless, that is, the cat is frothing alarmingly at the mouth.
Now where’s my publishing deal?😳
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JamesSmith-qs4hx Der, der, Jimbo, it’s not as bad as all that. You’re just racist, m8; I know that, you know that, we all know that. Everything, and I mean everything you see, you seem to see through such an incredibly narrow prism which means, in practice, you essentially only want people like you in your orbit: straight, white, heterosexual, semi-literate, intolerant of any difference etc etc. I’m here to tell you it doesn’t work like that, Jimbo. 👍
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Nicolas Olivier I’m anti all colonialism, if the consent of the colonised is not obtained. It’s quite simple. Answer me this: I knock on your door tomorrow and ask you if I can occupy your house against your will, impose my will, and if you dare refuse this I kill you, would you be happy with this scenario? However, if you agree to my occupation of your house, and the imposition of my ways, that is different. As far as I can see, if you are obeying the laws, speaking the native language and paying your taxes, then anyone has just as much right to live in a place as anyone else. That said, I’m not for open-door immigration when it comes to economic migrants and each nation rightly reserves the right to control this as it wishes. However, I do advocate an open-door policy for any genuine asylum seeker seeking refuge; although it would perhaps be preferable if international agreements as to these could be reached so that one country isn’t taking in more than their fair share proportionally to resources available.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@easymoney8535 Moral absolutes exist only as they relate to human perceptions. Otherwise, there are no moral absolutes. For example, most people might believe the murder of another human being is absolutely immoral. That is only because the ones making the judgment are human beings. How do you know death isn’t a ‘good’ in this equation? You are assuming that death is to be avoided at all costs? Why? Many people live in misery of multifarious kinds and I’m willing to bet if you gave them a pill to end it all painlessly they would. If you are talking about the taking of another’s life against their expressed will, then of course, you are right and this is not to be desired. However, I repeat this basic point that you and your fellow haranguer don’t seem to be able to perceive: other people value different things in a hierarchy different to your particular hierarchy. Putin, for example, is clearly hell-bent and motivated on subsuming all Ukrainians into a greater Russia just because he has this vision and he has the means, having been untouched in his absolute corrupted power for 20 years. You need to recognise that his ‘values’ concerning his invasion of Ukraine and the slaughter of innocents therein take a completely different spin to your ‘values’ or my ‘values’. He has ends, and for him the means justify the ends. I repeat what I said before as it’s vital you get this if you are to have any understanding of human behaviour: no one does anything inappropriate given their model of the world. Putin’s model radically differs from your model, or my model of the world, but given the model Putin is operating from, absolutely nothing he is doing is inappropriate. You need to see this if we are to have any mutual understanding here. Morality is just something we make up as we go along, case by case. To walk down the path of moral absolutes, is to walk the path of every authoritarian who ever lived. There are no moral absolutes. We collectively agree that killing someone is a ‘bad thing’ but I can think of cases where killing another is a ‘good thing'. For example, imagine you are standing beside some tram tracks. In the distance, you spot a runaway trolley hurtling down the tracks towards five workers who cannot hear it coming. Even if they do spot it, they won’t be able to move out of the way in time. As this disaster looms, you glance down and see a lever connected to the tracks. You realise that if you pull the lever, the tram will be diverted down a second set of tracks away from the five unsuspecting workers. However, down this side track is one lone worker, just as oblivious as his colleagues. So, would you pull the lever, leading to one death but saving five?
Well, would you? The trolley dilemma allows us to think through the consequences of an action and consider whether its moral value is determined solely by its outcome. I, personally, am a consequentialist/utilitarian when it comes to ethics/morality: that is, what’s the outcome, and what shall give the greatest happiness to the greatest number? As Shakespeare said: There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so. What he is saying is that there are no moral absolutes. Sometimes killing someone is the ‘right’ decision. As to Putin, I repeat what I said numerous times in this thread: he’s a dick. The planet could do without him. However, and this is the key point: Putin doesn’t think he’s wrong, and unless we conjure with this truth we will get nowhere, and thereby probably enable further incursions into wherever his fancy may take him next.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@gmailvfone That’s not the point here. Regardless if America was a democratically-elected regime, or, as with Putin, a barbaric dictatorship, both have blood on their hands, and, yes, if we tally it up historically, I can’t think of one regime that has more blood on its hands than America. And that probably includes Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, although, God knows, they were bad enough.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@siesie8827 Nothing’s ‘given’ to us as far as I can see. It just happens. We are all just genetic accidents. I repeat my point: if you were given the choice whether to endure this vale of tears or not, knowing what you know now, would you? I know what my choice would be. I don’t buy this arrogant anthropocentric idea that human life is any more ‘sacred’ than the life of any other living creature who is able to suffer. On this basis, pro-choice for women (with all due consideration for dates on termination in the womb) has to be the way here, in my opinion. The earlier the better, to obviate risk of suffering. I have absolutely no moral issue with terminating a bunch of cells or anything which hasn’t developed a fully-functioning central nervous system. It’s the woman’s body; ergo, it’s her choice, therefore for anyone , man or woman, to interfere with this choice is inadmissible and invidious. It’s none of my, or anyone else’s business, aside from the woman in question.
2
-
2
-
The trouble humanity has, and has always had, is one of self-definition. Before ‘human being’, first and foremost, we seem to want to put this or that random accident of birth, or this or that imagined daddy in the sky. Individually, this is not an issue. However, when we band together with others on the basis of random accidents of birth and imagined daddies in the sky, the trouble starts. Nietzsche looked at this in the eye and called it: In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. With an outlier like Putin, we need to develop a workable system of removing such dictators from positions of power. In the kindergarten, the staff don’t allow a single bully to ride roughshod over others as whim dictates. Why, then, do we allow this as adults? 👀
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ashleysmith1290 I’m just coming from the value-position here. Frankly, I personally in my everyday life before this all started, couldn’t have given a flying fuck about Ukraine or Russia; all I know, having stood on the sidelines for 3 weeks, is that Russia is the more the wronger here than the wronged. I say this fully acknowledging that, yes, Zelensky is far from sainthood. But I return to the key point here, leaving aside the personality crap: Russia invaded a sovereign, self-governing nation, the majority of whom want nothing to do with Putin’s Russia. This much, for me, is clear.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Why do so many other developed nations not have America’s baleful gun culture? Germany, the UK, Japan, for example, don’t seem to have this terrible issue with gun crime, and yet there is relative peace in terms of general society, and certainly mass killings are rare. America needs to seriously look at its Second Amendment. There are only three countries that have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms: Mexico, Guatemala, and the United States. Although Mexico and Guatemala both have a constitutional right to bear arms, the US is in a league of its own simply because it is the only country without restrictions on gun ownership in its constitution. After the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, it inspired other countries around the world to provide their citizens with the right to own guns. However, only 15 constitutions (in nine countries) ever included an explicit right to bear arms. They are Bolivia, Costa Rica, Colombia, Honduras, Nicaragua, Liberia, Guatemala, Mexico, and the US. All of those countries, excluding Mexico, the US, and Guatemala, have since rescinded the constitutional right to bear arms. So, America is the outlier here in terms of citizens’ rights to bear arms. Does it want to continue this, and put up with its horrible mass killings? Or does it want to consider repealing the Second Amendment, thereby allowing the average American citizen to breathe that much easier in the ‘land of the free’?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
How does your ‘border’ argument work when it comes to Spain, or France, or Italy, or Germany? Moreover, we have criminals in Europe. They can access illegal weapons, just like your criminals in America can. Difference with America is that you freaks can also quite easily access legal weapons, capable of massacring dozens in seconds. Ease of access permits your homicide rate to be consistently 4x that of European nations. Truth is, you’re hobbled by your 2nd Amendment. Yes, if you regulate guns better, this will not stop the hardened, determined, ne’er-do-well from getting their hands on guns, but it would drastically lessen the chances of a disaffected 18 year old nutjob walking into a school and blowing away 20 children in less than 3 minutes. That kind of thing, while not unknown in Europe, and elsewhere, just doesn’t happen with the horrific frequency it does in America. Fact: last mass shooting in UK? 1996. You read that right. 1996.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@carlgrove8793 I can tell you categorically having been brought up in a quite strict religious tradition, that Dawkins’ description is in no way over the top. The Old Testament God is a horrendously brutal character and I’m just glad he doesn’t actually exist! As for the Koran, well this is not a pleasant book, particularly if you’re not Muslim. Infidels are brutally condemned, jihad is openly sanctioned, women often come off second best, homosexuals and homosexuality are demonised, and so it goes on. Neither book is particularly conducive to the creation of open, tolerant, decent people, to say the least. Look at the Koran again if you don’t believe me. I’ll give you this almost at random concerning jihad: The believers who stay at home - apart from those that suffer from a grave impediment - are not the equal of those who fight for the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God has given those that fight with their goods and their persons a higher rank than those who stay at home. God has promised all a good reward; but far richer is the recompense of those who fight for Him … He that leaves his dwelling to fight for God and His apostle and is then overtaken by death, shall be rewarded by God … the unbelievers are your inveterate enemies. (Koran 4:95-101) This stuff is chilling quite simply because Islam never underwent any kind of Reformation whereby this toxic, dangerous crap might not be taken quite so literally. As it is, if I’m a Muslim reading these words, it’s explicitly exhorting me to go and fight others for my religion. It can’t be read any other way. I repeat, I’m no atheist, but I’m most certainly against these rigid, primitive, barbaric, monotheistic texts that have benighted humanity for 2000 years. Organised religion, along with nationalism are the two most baleful disasters humanity ever had the misfortune to invent.
2
-
@carlgrove8793 You need to look again at both books, I fear. Certainly, the Old Testament is dripping blood virtually cover to cover, and the Koran is not far behind. I’m no atheist, but Richard Dawkins nailed just what we are dealing with in the Old Testament God: The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. This depiction is in no way hyperbole. More’s the pity.
2
-
@carlgrove8793 I tend to agree, up to a point. I’m an upholder of absolute free-speech, meaning that I personally would advocate anyone being able to say absolutely anything they want to say, yes, including what others would perhaps claim as incitement to violence. I accept that in the real world, that that, perhaps, isn’t going to float, but my line is when words are turned into actions. So, you can say what you want, if you want, but make sure you have the evidence for your claims. As to burning ‘holy’ books: on the one hand, I can see this as incendiary from a certain point of view, from another absolutist free-speech point of view, I don’t particularly have an issue with it, although it’s not necessarily conducive to the operations of a peaceful civil society in the long run. I suppose what this all boils down to is what are you offended by? Most, if not all, people have certain triggers, but these triggers vary from person to person. Nothing particularly triggers me, as I have trained myself not to be offended; by anything, really. However, if you’re going to stray into the realms of slander/libel, then make sure you have the evidence, that’s all. Free-speech as long as you are not inciting violence is perhaps the best we can hope for here in the real world. That means all religion should be open to criticism. Personally, I have an anathema to all the acknowledged monotheistic religions, seeing the literal adherence to medieval, barbaric, primitive texts unworthy of thinking human beings. The Bible and the Koran, in my opinion, are horrendously brutal texts if you read them literally. However, I read them as I read the Greek/Roman myths; as repositories of fanciful, but sometimes instructive tales; but the last thing you want to do is be taking any of it literally, for that way madness lies, as the past 2000 years demonstrate, and as the current events in Malmö demonstrate.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@curiositycloset2359 Can I tell you something, mate, I’m probably a bit older than you and, while I certainly don’t take my freedoms for granted, and yes, we are all at the behest of the military-industrial complex, but then that has been the case since the year dot, so tell me something new, but if you give me the choice of life in a liberal democratic country versus life in Putin’s Russia, I’m choosing the former 10 times out of 10. Kudos to you, and anyone else, who would even consider for a second that Putin’s Russia is preferable for the ordinary punter than France, UK, Spain, Italy, Germany etc etc etc.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@curiositycloset2359 I’m not defending the coup. It was wrong. What I’m saying is rather simple: Zelensky was democratically-elected. Putin wasn’t. Putin invaded a sovereign, self-governing nation, first in 2014 and again in 2022. I’m not saying Zelensky’s an angel. What I am saying is that Putin is more the wronger than the wronged in this scenario. My key point that you continually ignore, wilfully or otherwise, is that a majority of Ukrainians want fuck all to do with Putin’s Russia. They have proved this by smashing him in this war, notwithstanding the superior forces of the Russians. Quite simply, a majority of Ukrainians want to live in a liberal democratic country and not a communist dictatorship. And, yes, yes, I know all about the coup and the Civil War, but that doesn’t detract one iota from my two main points: Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation and the majority of Ukrainians look west, not east. No one is totally blameless in this but for me most of the blame lies with Putin, and that’s having researched this topic thoroughly.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@curiositycloset2359 You don’t need to lecture me, mate. I’m neutral here. I do my research. I’m fully aware Zelensky is no angel. Although Russia is an aggressor for sure here, it’s hardly been unprovoked, and this is really a Civil War (particularly from Putin’s point of view). NATO reneging on its agreement not to expand post 1989 has provoked Putin. Casual flouting of 2014 Minsk agreements not to aggress against pro-Russian Ukrainians in the east, leading to the loss of about 14,000 has provoked Putin. The 2014 coup having much evidence (surprise! surprise!) of the paw prints of the CIA\USA has provoked Putin. Zelensky has publicly expressed a desire to acquire nuclear weapons, understandably spooking Moscow and thereby provoking Putin. There’s also the stench of corrupt family Biden deals with Ukraine, as well, which might explain sleepy Joe’s reluctance to get directly involved here. For now. Add to this Putin’s statement that the dissolution of the Soviet Empire was the ‘most tragic geopolitical event of the 20th century’, along with his belief in the greater mother Russia project and bringing the recalcitrant (as he sees them) Ukrainians back into the Slavic familial bosom and you have a perfect storm in which Putin feels justified in rolling his tanks into another sovereign, self-governing territory. He’s deluded in doing this, of course, as most Ukrainians want nothing to do with him, and rightly so. None of the above makes what Putin is doing right, but it makes it a little more understandable from Putin’s/Russia’s point of view. So, you see? I get all that stuff. I return to my fundamental point: the majority will of Ukrainians seems to want nothing to do with Putin’s Russia. You need to acknowledge this or forever hold your peace.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@AWcinema While I fully uphold the territorial rights of Ukraine and their desire to win back Crimea and east Ukraine in general, it has to be borne in mind here that Putin is an old USSR has-been having a last hurrah, a final swing before he pops his brothel creepers. From his point of view, the old Russian/Soviet Empire point of view, these parts of Ukraine are indeed Russian. Part of me feels that a way to go here, to save Ukraine more trouble, and the rest of the world potential trouble, is to agree to let Putin’s Russia occupy these bits until Putin departs the scene. I kind of think this is one man’s fantasy project and we should maybe humour him in his dotage, then Ukraine can have Crimea and Donbas back and exist as the full, self-governing sovereign nation it was before 2014. I know this smacks of appeasement, but for a quiet life … for now?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TC8787-yq7og In this whole wider immigration debate, there’s a subtle difference between ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘multiethnicism’. I have a problem with the former if it means each separate cultural group living their own lives parallel and separate from the broad main national culture, which I really only see in a cohort of Muslims (in Sweden, the UK, France and many other western European states). However, I have zero issue with multiethnicism, thereby rebuking you claim I’m somehow ‘racist’. The colour of your skin bothers me not a jot; it’s only your ideas I care about, and the ideas tend to come into play with ‘multiculturalism’ and separate cultures living side by side. I tend to see only a lack of integration in a cohort of Muslims living in the UK, and Europe more generally. I don’t see it in, for example, Chinese/Indians/Poles/ etc. Another thing I would say is that I have lived for long stretches in several places around the world and in every single one of these places only 3 things was asked of me: speak the language, pay taxes and don’t break the law. Now, obviously, I wasn’t living in these places permanently, but tbh, that’s all I really ask of those who come here. Most do these things and as they produce generations, these generations tend to meld with the whole. It’s only a rump of Muslims who want none of this. And as a previous speaker in these comments said, a big part of the issue is more moderate Muslims staying silent when their more vehement brethren are causing trouble for everyone wherever they go.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are! (George Carlin)
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hunter70558 Incidentally, the amount of rounds clearly does matter. When an 18 year old homicidal maniac can buy a semi-automatic weapon as if he were buying a can of soda, lock himself in a classroom with 10 year olds, and massacre them and their teacher firing at 50 rounds per minute, then this is an ‘issue’. This would not have been possible on such a scale until these high-powered weapons were developed. Your ‘tyrannical government’ argument doesn’t seem to be an argument for any other countries; no, they sensibly have strict vetting, strict laws as to whom can legally own guns and what type of guns they may own. Eg. Dunblane, Scotland, 1996, mass shooting in a school; immediate gun legislation instituted; in the 26 years since, there has not been a single mass shooting in the UK. People in Europe, and elsewhere, look at America in stunned disbelief that you allow this to continue. Yes, it’s political, and we all know Republicans are paid to block gun control reform, but with this debate I’m always reminded of Einstein and his definition of ‘madness’: doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked. (George Carlin)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dibsdib3697 Well, here’s the thing: you’d think some kind of genetic imperative would override his lust for his mother, but it didn’t. He simply liked the look of her and married her. The knowledge, or otherwise, that she was his mother is irrelevant. I would add this, however, I tend to think that the idea of boys fancying their mums is a bit less true than the idea of girls lusting after their fathers, or at the very least, someone quite closely resembling him, often both physically and morally. I’m not aware of many of my male acquaintances who have secretly lusted for their mums, myself included, but I most certainly have met a fair few men who secretly wanted to do away with their dad for one reason or another (probably not so much Freud’s one of secretly lusting for mother). So I think Freud got about half of the Oedipus complex right. As I said above, these ideas can be dated right back to the beginnings of our collective intellectual evolution as a species, and they persist for very good reasons. The thing you suggested earlier about homosexuality not conforming to Freud’s idea of issues in his anal phase, well again, I wouldn’t write these things off so blithely. I personally happen to think that a genetic component of sexuality largely determines one’s sexual predilections; however, these can be directed, as it were, according to how we were brought up as infants.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Given that America and her partners have the most egregious record of meddling in the affairs of other sovereign territories, regardless of whether these territories wanted this or not, we cannot be surprised if Putin/Russia moves on a neighbouring country giving strong signals it wants to ally itself with the West and not Russia. Our double standards here are staggering. As far as I can see, Putin is only doing what the West has done for the past 250 years and more. If Putin agreed a deal with Canada and/or Mexico to install weapons on their soil directly targeting America, I doubt very much that America wouldn’t act, and very probably violently, based on its past record. Therefore, why are we surprised when Putin does what most every other place on this planet would’ve done, given what was transpiring in Ukraine and their direction facing West: that is, acting in his own perceived self-interest? It goes without saying that what Putin is doing is wrong, but it’s understandable, even if you are not Putin.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@DesertStateInEU This is going to sting you a little more, so you might want to sit down and pour yourself a stiff drink before you read this:
# USA ~ 4.96 homicides per 100,000
# Serbia ~ 1.23 homicides per 100,000
# Finland ~ 1.63 homicides per 100,000
# North Macedonia ~ 1.2 homicides per 100,000
# Albania ~ 2.29 homicides per 100,000
# France ~ 1.2 homicides per 100,000
# Slovakia ~ 1.14 homicides per 100,000
# Switzerland ~ 0.59 homicides per 100,000
# Belgium ~ 1.69 homicides per 100,000
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tastypymp1287 Amsterdam remains the least safe city in the Netherlands.
This is meaningless in this debate given that the Netherlands hovers around the no.20 mark in most of the lists of the world’s safest countries.
Thing is, Tasty, you have an agenda and you’re determined to promote it, bolster it, feed it. I’ve deduced that you’re right-wing, anti-immigration and probably want to retain some kind of “white ethnic purity” in the British populace (I could be wrong on all 3 counts here but don’t think I am), so when you quote me selective stuff to fit your preordained agenda, I just don’t buy it. I tend to look at the data in the round. So, I repeat: the Netherlands is a top 20 safe country (more or less), so saying Amsterdam is the most dangerous city in the Netherlands, in that context, loses its power.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I have an agenda too (we all have an agenda), but I have very little time for the extremes in any debate, and you strike me as particularly far to one side (and therefore, in my eyes, unbalanced) in all these debates. Global warming; immigration; crime etc.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@AndyCutright If the ‘guns’ aren’t the issue, why is it that after 16 children and their teacher were massacred in Dunblane in Scotland in 1996, stricter gun laws were instituted and there hasn’t been a mass shooting in the UK since?; while in America, where every bozo and their dog over 18 can access guns like they can access candies, there are weekly mass shootings? Seems to me like easy legal access to guns very much is the issue, here. It’s as obvious as day. Also, you call America ‘safe’, but with a homicide rate (mostly using guns), consistently 4x over that of comparable countries, that would seem to suggest there is a gun issue. Few other countries have this issue in the same way as America, as they have instituted laws to protect free, easy access to high-calibre weapons. Also, none of these countries seem to invoke this argument that they must have a firearm to ‘protect them from a tyrannical government’; only America (and usually Republican America) trots out this argument, so that they can keep their deadly toys.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@justsain3236 Having lived in ‘dry’ countries and countries which permit alcohol, I’ll take my chances with the latter, for all the messiness. The former places are, without exception, intolerably, crushingly, mind-bendingly dull. When you throw in rigid, patriarchal, monotheistic crap based on primitive, medieval, frequently barbaric texts that dictate that thou shalt do this and not that, well, you’re getting close to a definition of hell in my book. The other thing is, you talk of people ‘drinking’ alcohol and list all these issues as if all people who ‘drink’ alcohol cause all these problems. I’m here to tell you something: 99% of the people I know who ‘drink’ alcohol cause precisely zero of these problems. You need to be more accurate with your language. ‘Abuse’ alcohol was the word you wanted. Just Sa’in.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@atlasnetwork7855 Not sure why you keep harping on about this ‘risk averse’ thing. I never mentioned this once. At the risk of repeating myself, my thesis is rather simple: those who have been broadly educated in further and higher education (although I include the autodidacts in this, too), correlate with more open, tolerant, liberal attitudes to others generally. This is my experience over decades. Conversely, those who have had a poor/basic education (for whatever reason) tend to be narrow, intolerant, conservative, hidebound and not much in favour of very much beyond their own very narrow self-interest. Now, of course, we are all in favour of our own self-interest, but some self-interests are grander and broader than others. That’s all. Not sure why this should be news, frankly. It’s obvious stuff to anyone with eyes to see.
2
-
@atlasnetwork7855
1. I wasn’t suggesting people don’t have a right to these opinions; I was just pointing it out as I see it. Moreover, I have absolutely no issue, personally, with these opinions being expressed.
2. I disagree. I would say that if being sexist, racist and homophobic isn’t ‘right-wing’, then we are going to render such terms meaningless thereby.
3. You are naive to suggest that folk who are strongly anti-immigration aren’t somewhat racist. Not all, but lots are; perhaps the majority in their various ways. For the record, I get why people are intolerant of what they see as mass immigration and think this is a national referendum issue; however, there is a strong streak of racism behind much of the anti-immigration thing in my experience.
4. I stand by my claim that those I’m aware of who are strongly anti-European, are often anti-women, anti-gays, and anti-just about any other culture you care to mention that isn’t their own narrow one.
5. Not necessarily ‘Europhile’; that’s perhaps exaggerating it. I think you’re missing my general point here. This is, that people who are broadly educated in the liberal tradition are more likely to have fewer issues with foreign cultures generally. That’s all I was really saying. Don’t get too sidetracked with the Brexit thing in this regard.
6. We may have to agree to disagree here, mate. Your points are well made and I’m on board with much of what you say, but I stand by what I’ve said in this thread.
2
-
@atlasnetwork7855 I would add that you are perhaps misreading me; just because folk don’t have formal further and higher education doesn’t make them stupid. However, I would argue that it does make them, broadly, socially conservative, suspicious, often intolerant, often disdainful of the life of the mind, often, yes, racist, sexist and homophobic. None of these things ipso facto mark you out as stupid, necessarily, but they are certainly a predictor of whether you’re going to want to throw your lot in with a bunch of ‘funny foreigners’ across the water. For the record, I’m highly suspicious of the E.U., but on balance, think it’s the better thing. Just.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@atlasnetwork7855 I disagree. There is a lot of truth in Goodheart’s thesis; this is only anecdotal, but it’s apposite: virtually everyone I know who voted to remain is university-educated, has lived in several places other than their place of birth and upbringing, are invariably socially liberal, are not arsed about ‘accident-of-birth’ crap as a key marker of their identity, are open to (and, vitally, not threatened by) other cultures, have travelled extensively, are often multilingual (yes, these are Brits!). While, contra this, the principal core of Brexiteers I know are not university-educated (and, actually, often have an active disdain for the life of the mind), have not only not lived anywhere else but their ‘accident-of-birth’ realm, but have often not been beyond a Spanish Costa when it comes to seeing other parts of this planet, are socially conservative to the point of appearing racist, sexist and homophobic to the Anywheres (not that this is an issue for the Somewheres, as they often wear their prejudices like badges of honour), are often poor in speaking their mother-tongue, let alone other tongues, and so it goes on. Now, of course, there are exceptions to these and this is my anecdotal experience, but this experience largely tallies with Goodheart’s thesis in broad terms.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Monarchy: an unelected, unaccountable, money-grubbing tribe of hangers-on. Free from public scrutiny, what have they ever really done for us? A symbol of ‘Britishness’? Not my idea of Britishness. The Queen is in a bind, as she can neither truly speak for herself or Britain. She cannot hold herself to account, or politicians to account. Ah, but the Monarchy promotes Britain abroad. Does it? How are we supposed to ‘promote’ democracy abroad through a deeply undemocratic institution? The internal contradiction is insurmountable. Finally, the monarchists chime in with ‘but they are so good for tourism’, but that idea may be demolished in a jiffy: look at France; a Republic for 250 years, and the Versailles Palace is the 3rd most visited tourist site in the whole of France, so the point that the tourist stream to Britain would run dry if we abolished the monarchy is a non-starter.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Although Russia is an aggressor for sure here, it’s hardly been unprovoked, and this is really a Civil War (particularly from Putin’s point of view). NATO reneging on its agreement not to expand post 1989 has provoked Putin. Casual flouting of 2014 Minsk agreements not to aggress against pro-Russian Ukrainians in the east, leading to the loss of about 14,000 has provoked Putin. The 2014 coup having much evidence (surprise! surprise!) of the paw prints of the CIA\USA has provoked Putin. Zelensky has publicly expressed a desire to acquire nuclear weapons, understandably spooking Moscow and thereby provoking Putin. There’s also the stench of corrupt family Biden deals with Ukraine, as well, which might explain sleepy Joe’s reluctance to get directly involved here. For now. Add to this Putin’s statement that the dissolution of the Soviet Empire was the ‘most tragic geopolitical event of the 20th century’, along with his belief in the greater mother Russia project and bringing the recalcitrant (as he sees them) Ukrainians back into the Slavic familial bosom and you have a perfect storm in which Putin feels justified in rolling his tanks into another sovereign, self-governing territory. He’s deluded in doing this, of course, as most Ukrainians want nothing to do with him, and rightly so. None of the above makes what Putin is doing right, but it makes it a little more understandable from Putin’s/Russia’s point of view.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The greatest problem humanity faces, and has always faced, is one of perspective. We have narrowed our vision such that are unable to see the universal wood for the exclusive trees. We have hitched our star to this or that family, clan, tribe, nationalism, religion, such that we have become deluded, unable to serenely see what actually is. We are cosmic dust on a grain of sand, one of trillions of grains of sand, whirling around a nuclear reactor, one of trillions of nuclear reactors and we are willing to abase ourselves to murdering one another for an accident of birth, or an imagined daddy in the sky? Has it come to this? There are alien civilisations who use this Earth as a cosmic pit stop on their intergalactic travels and they look at us and weep. They have perspective. They can literally see the Earth in toto. They cannot see the pettifogging, sanguinary squabbles over this or that imaginary line drawn on a map. They cannot see the ignorant ranters championing their imagined God, ranked against the ignorant ranters championing their imaginary God. The solution to all this nonsense is very simple. Expand your terms of self-definition. Refuse to accept a random, arbitrary accident of birth as a salient marker of your identity. Refuse to accept unthought-out shibboleths handed down to you to shore up your fear of death. Refuse to be proud, unless your pride is grounded in self-motivated, self-guided achievement, and not some random, bizarre, nonsensical ‘pride’ based on the fact your mother happened to plop you out here, and not there. None of this would matter a fig, but for a key point: we now, at this critical juncture in our cosmic journey, face the very real and present danger of incinerating this planet and everything on it. Really. We are better than that.😳
2
-
2
-
2
-
Full disclosure: I’m agnostic, apolitical and anational. I just don’t want to be incinerated in a thermonuclear annihilation scenario, that’s all. But this needs to be said, if we are to have any understanding as to what is going on here: Putin is not mad; rather, he considers NATO/USA/West an encroaching mortal threat, and I think he has a point. It’s too easy to label him as Vlad the Mad, the unhinged, sexually repressed freak (he’s that, all right - if he just came out he could save us a whole lotta trouble here), but he’s simply acting according to his vision of the world. Where I and Vlad part company, is where he invades self-governing, sovereign territories, no matter how much he may think he has a claim on them, like in some geopolitical version of a child-custody battle. However, it’s vitally important we don’t paint Putin as this non-human ‘monster’; he’s far from that.😳
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@elkapitan75 The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is driven by several factors: ethnic, national, historical, and religious. Religious identity is the key factor that impacts this issue existentially. Why is religion at the core of this conflict? Several religious factors pertinent to Islam and Judaism dictate the role of religion as the main factor in the conflict, notably including the sanctity of holy sites and the apocalyptic narratives of both religions, which are detrimental to any potential for lasting peace between the two sides. Extreme religious Zionists in Israel increasingly see themselves as guardians and definers of how the Jewish state should be, and are very stringent when it comes to any concessions to the Arabs. On the other hand, Islamist groups in Palestine and elsewhere in the Islamic world advocate the necessity of liberating the “holy” territories and sites for religious reasons, and preach violence and hatred against Israel and the Jewish people. Religion-based rumors propagated by extremists in the media and social media about the hidden religious agendas of the other side exacerbate these tensions. Examples include rumors about a “Jewish Plan” to destroy al Aqsa mosque and build the Jewish third temple on its remnants, and, on the other side rumors that Muslims hold the annihilation of Jews at the core of their belief. In addition, worsening socio-economic conditions in the Arab and Islamic world contribute to the growth of religious radicalism, pushing a larger percentage of youth towards fanaticism, and religion-inspired politics. The advent of the Arab spring, ironically, also posed a threat to Arab-Israeli peace, as previously stable regimes were often challenged by extreme political views. A prominent example was the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, who after succeeding to the presidency in 2012, threatened to compromise the peace agreement with Israel based on their religious ideology – even if they did not immediately tear up the treaty.
That , son, is what religion has to do with this issue.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JamesSmith-qs4hx The irony of someone like you, Jimbo, more or less demanding they think like you, live like you, be like you, yet if anyone else made the same demands on you ?!?! 🤣 Your hypocrisy is staggering, son. “I’m Jimbo, you must live like me. I make the rules.” Dictator par excellence, Jimbo. 👌 DiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiCKttttttttttttttttttaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatttttttttooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, I saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyy, Jiiiiiiiiiimmmmmmmmmmmmmmbooooooooooooooooooooooooo … zo.🤣🤣😂😅🤣😅🤣😅🤣😅🤣😅😂😅🤣😅🤣🤣
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ayoolukoga9829 You’re a poor deluded fool, but there are many of those and I reserve you the right to be this if you so choose. Any dispassionate reader of the Bible can see from the off that we are dealing with a primitive, barbaric text, depicting a primitive, barbaric God. As Richard Dawkins brilliantly stated: The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. If you want to uphold that God, crack on. Just count me out.
2
-
@ayoolukoga9829 Yes? And? Your point is? Those things have been happening for the past 2,000 years. You quote it like it was written for today, when in fact, it can be applied to just about any year you care to mention from 0CE-2022CE. After all, those near contemporaries of Jesus thought he was coming back in their time, and when he didn’t you nutters had to spin it out for the text 2,000 years; as you will be doing for the next 2,000; and then the next. For Jesus never existed. His story is a stolen, rehashed, reheated tale of the dying/resurrecting god, brazenly filched from the pagans. The Christians are, quite simply, brazen-faced plagiarists. The fatal mistake the rigid monotheists have made since time immemorial is to foolishly read their respective texts as literal truth.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
What’s happening in France can be correlated with Brexit and Trump. Instead of looking at this in terms of traditional left versus right, David Goodheart’s thesis of two distinct ‘tribes’, the ‘anywheres’ and the ‘somewheres’, with irreconcilable differences may be applicable here. Brexiteers, Trumpeteers and Le Penistas fall into the ‘somewhere’ camp and they may be seen as rooted in geographical identity - the Scottish farmer; working-class Geordie; Cornish housewife - who find rapid changes to the modern world unsettling; are socially conservative; are likely to be older and less well educated and less mobile. This manifests in supporting anti-mass-immigration policies, strong support for the Armed Forces, suspicion of the EU, and more widely ‘other’ cultures, strong support for strict law enforcement (including the death penalty), and a general authoritarianism and the notion that the primary job of Britain’s leaders is to put British interests first. ‘Anywheres’ are footloose; often urban; university educated; socially liberal; egalitarian and meritocratic in their attitudes to race, sexuality, and gender; are able to migrate and integrate comfortably into other places; are often strong supporters of the EU and globalisation; are lighter in their attachments to larger group identities, including national ones, valuing autonomy and self-realisation before stability, community and tradition. What’s happening in France may be seen as a battle between the Anywheres and the Somewheres just as Brexit and Trump’s election may be seen in these terms.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Lalo3g1 He was far from unprovoked, though. Although Russia is an aggressor for sure here, it’s hardly been unprovoked, and this is really a Civil War (particularly from Putin’s point of view). NATO reneging on its agreement not to expand post 1989 has provoked Putin. Casual flouting of 2014 Minsk agreements not to aggress against pro-Russian Ukrainians in the east, leading to the loss of about 14,000 has provoked Putin. The 2014 coup having much evidence (surprise! surprise!) of the paw prints of the CIA\USA has provoked Putin. Zelensky has publicly expressed a desire to acquire nuclear weapons, understandably spooking Moscow and thereby provoking Putin. There’s also the stench of corrupt family Biden deals with Ukraine, as well, which might explain sleepy Joe’s reluctance to get directly involved here. For now. Add to this Putin’s statement that the dissolution of the Soviet Empire was the ‘most tragic geopolitical event of the 20th century’, along with his belief in the greater mother Russia project and bringing the recalcitrant (as he sees them) Ukrainians back into the Slavic familial bosom and you have a perfect storm in which Putin feels justified in rolling his tanks into another sovereign, self-governing territory. He’s deluded in doing this, of course, as most Ukrainians want nothing to do with him, and rightly so. None of the above makes what Putin is doing right, but it makes it a little more understandable from Putin’s/Russia’s point of view.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jesuswasaliberal4778 Just for the record, I hope your name is ironic, for Jesus, if you take him at his word, was far from ‘liberal’. If the Scriptures are to be believed, he was rather strident and illiberal. His stance on Hell is rather no-nonsense. Jesus doesn’t only reference Hell, he describes it in great detail. He says it is a place of eternal torment (Luke 16:23), of unquenchable fire (Mark 9:43), where the worm does not die (Mark 9:48), where people will gnash their teeth in anguish and regret (Matt. 13:42), and from which there is no return, even to warn loved ones (Luke 16:19–31). He calls Hell a place of “outer darkness” (Matt. 25:30), comparing it to “Gehenna” (Matt. 10:28), which was a trash dump outside the walls of Jerusalem where rubbish was burned and maggots abounded. Jesus talks about Hell more than he talks about Heaven, and describes it more vividly. There’s no denying that Jesus knew, believed, and warned about the absolute reality of Hell. Of course, any human being on this planet knows that so many of its own species are going through ‘Hell’ as we speak. No supernatural baloney needed. As Aldous Huxley insightfully put it: “Maybe this world is another planet’s Hell.” Indeed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@deborahfreedman333 I would also politely add, apropos your reply here to Ben; I don’t think ‘world domination’ is anywhere near the Russian radar. Putin, the old Cold War relic, just has a vision of how the now Russia (then USSR) should be. He just wants that kind of sphere of influence, geographically-speaking. All the Marxist/Communist stuff plays no real part in this vision. Putin is ex-KGB, ex-Communist, yes, but I’m willing to bet that even he sees that ship as having sailed back in 1989. No, what he wants, I think, is a purely spatial/geographical sphere of influence, answering broadly to the old Soviet Union.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
“You know that most cases of FGM are consensual, right? Many people are raised in environments where this practice is normalised, so they don’t see any issue with it. They consent to it.” (Jegamespeed5399, aka ‘JayBits’)🤦♂️
Don’t be silly, son. Do you honestly think 12 year old girls in their right minds are going to willingly consent to having their genitals lopped off? That admission alone demonstrates where you are at. 🤦♂️Can you not think for yourself, for once, dude? I suggest to you, aged 12, that we chop off your cock for no reason. Do you consent to this? 🤦♂️
“Listen, hun, after school today me and your mother are going to take you to have a completely unnecessary medical procedure involving having your clitoris hacked off thereby leading to your being unable to have sexual pleasure ever and leading to the following possible complications:”
•severe pain
•excessive bleeding (haemorrhage)
•genital tissue swelling
•fever
•infections e.g., tetanus
•urinary problems
•wound healing problems
•injury to surrounding genital tissue
•shock
•vaginal problems (discharge, itching, bacterial vaginosis and other infections)
menstrual problems (painful menstruations, difficulty in passing menstrual blood, etc.)
•scar tissue and keloid
•sexual problems (pain during intercourse, decreased satisfaction)
•increased risk of childbirth complications (difficult delivery, excessive bleeding, caesarean section, need to resuscitate the baby, etc.) and newborn deaths
•need for later surgeries: for example, the sealing or narrowing of the vaginal opening (type 3) may lead to the practice of cutting open the sealed vagina later to allow for sexual intercourse and childbirth (deinfibulation). Sometimes genital tissue is stitched again several times, including after childbirth, hence the woman goes through repeated opening and closing procedures, further increasing both immediate and long-term risks
•psychological problems (depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, low self-esteem, etc.)
•death
“Now, darling, would you like to consent to this completely unnecessary procedure?” 🤦♂️
2
-
2
-
It’s a process. It’s a process whereby gay men and women simply gain the right to have consensual adult sex free of fear of criminalisation involving fines, imprisonment or worse, wherever they are on the planet.
The following is a timeline list of when and where homosexuality was decriminalised. This list is interesting as it gives the lie, somewhat, to the idea that decriminalising homosexuality is a wholly (or even a mainly) ‘Western thing’, so apparently feared by lube-head here. To pick some examples at random to demonstrate this: Turkey decriminalised in 1858; Japan in 1882; Taiwan in 1912; Thailand in 1956… while it was as late as 1967 in England/Wales and, remarkably, even later in the country of my birth, Scotland, in 1981. Equally remarkably, it was as late as 1993 before it was decriminalised in Washington DC, another 10 years after this before all the states had decriminalised. Added to this is the notable fact that in the list where homosexuality has never been illegal, almost every single country, without exception, is non-Western.
•Never been illegal
Aruba, Netherlands
Benin
Burkina Faso
Cambodia
Central African Republic
Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Republic of the Congo
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Christmas Island, Australia
Curaçao Curaçao, Netherlands
Djibouti
Equatorial Guinea
French Polynesia, France
Indonesia
Ivory Coast
Laos
Madagascar
Mali
Mayotte, France
Federated States of Micronesia
New Caledonia, France
Niger
North Korea
Rwanda
Sint Maarten, Netherlands
South Korea
Philippines
Vietnam
Wallis and Futuna, France
•18th Century
1791: Andorra
France Kingdom of France (includes Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Réunion, San Barthélemy, Saint Martin, and Saint Pierre and Miquelon)
Haiti Saint-Domingue (Haiti)
1793: Monaco
1794: Luxembourg
1795: Belgium
1798: Canton of Geneva, Switzerland
Ticino, Switzerland
Vaud, Switzerland
Valais, Switzerland
•19th Century
1811: Netherlands
1822: Dominican Republic
El Salvador
1830: Brazil
1832: Bolivia
1853: Argentina
1858: Turkey
1864: San Marino
1869: Suriname
1871: Guatemala
Mexico
1882: Japan
1890: Italy
Vatican City
1899: Honduras
•20th Century
1912: Taiwan
1924: Peru
1933: Denmark (includes Greenland and Faroe Islands)
1932: Poland
1934: Uruguay
1940: Iceland
1942: Switzerland
1944: Sweden
1951: Greece
Jordan
Palestine
1956: Thailand
1961: Hungary
1962: Czechoslovakia
Illinois, United States
1967: England and Wales, United Kingdom
1968: Bulgaria
East Germany
1969: Canada
West Germany
1971: Austria
Connecticut, United States
Costa Rica
Finland
1972: Colorado, United States
Oregon, United States
Norway
1973: Delaware, United States
Hawaii, United States
Malta
North Dakota, United States
1974: Massachusetts, United States
Ohio, United States
1975: East Timor
New Hampshire, United States
New Mexico, United States
South Australia
1976: Australian Capital Territory
Bahrain
California, United States
Indiana, United States
Maine, United States
Washington (state), United States
West Virginia, United States
1977: Croatia
Montenegro
Slovenia
South Dakota, United States
Vermont, United States
Wyoming, United States
1978: Guam, United States
Iowa, United States
Nebraska, United States
New Jersey, United States
1979: Cuba
Spain
1980: American, United States
New York, United States
Pennsylvania, United States
1981: Colombia
Scotland, United Kingdom
Victoria, Australia
1982: Northern Ireland, United Kingdom
1983: Guernsey, United Kingdom
Northern Mariana Islands
Northern Territory, Australia
Portugal
Wisconsin, United States
1984: New South Wales, Australia
1985: Virgin Islands, United States
1986: New Zealand
1988: Israel
1989: Falkland Islands, United Kingdom
Liechtenstein
1990: Jersey, United Kingdom
Paraguay
Western Australia
1991: Bahamas
Abkhazia
Hong Kong
Queensland, Australia
South Ossetia
Ukraine
1992: Estonia
Isle of Man, United Kingdom
Kentucky, United States
Latvia
1993: Washington, D.C. District of Columbia, United States
Gibraltar, United Kingdom
Guinea-Bissau
Republic of Ireland
Lithuania
Mongolia
Nevada Nevada, United States
Norfolk Island, Australia
Russia
1994: Kosovo
Belarus
Bermuda Bermuda, United Kingdom
Serbia
1995: Albania
Moldova
1996: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Portuguese Macau
North Macedonia
Romania
Tennessee, United States
1997: China
Ecuador
Montana, United States
Tasmania, Australia
Venezuela
1998: Cyprus Cyprus
Georgia, United States
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Republika Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Rhode Island, United States
South Africa
Tajikistan
1999: Chile
Maryland, United States
2000: Akrotiri and Dhekelia, United Kingdom
Azerbaijan
Georgia (country)
•21st Century
2001: Anguilla, United Kingdom
Arizona, United States
Bosnia and Herzegovina
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands, United Kingdom
Minnesota, United States
Montserrat, United Kingdom
Saint Helena
Pitcairn Islands, United Kingdom
Turks and Caicos Islands, United Kingdom
2002: Arkansas, United States
Transnistria
2003: Armenia
Tokelau, New Zealand
United States (nationwide)
2004: Cape Verde
2005: Marshall Islands
2007: Nepal
Vanuatu
2008: Nicaragua
Panama
2010: Fiji
2012: Lesotho
São Tomé and Príncipe
2014: Northern Cyprus
Palau
2015: Mozambique
2016: Belize
Nauru
Seychelles
2018: India
Trinidad and Tobago
2019: Botswana
2020: Gabon
2021: Angola
Bhutan
2022: Antigua and Barbuda
Barbados
Singapore
Saint Kitts and Nevis
2023: Cook Islands, New Zealand
Mauritius
2024: Dominica
Namibia
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Act (2023) prescribes up to twenty years in prison for ‘promotion of homosexuality’, life imprisonment for ‘homosexual acts’, and the death penalty for ‘aggravated homosexuality’.
1. How, exactly, can you ‘promote’ homosexuality? This isn’t about trying to persuade people to become gay, as if you are trying to persuade people to vote for you, or persuade people to buy a new whizz-bang, fancy-pants vibrator (ijumpjudy has just put in her order - extra batteries included 😉); that’s impossible. It’s not like you can ‘catch’ homosexuality like you can catch a virus, any more than you can ‘catch’ heterosexuality. You are either gay or you aren’t, just as you are heterosexual, or you aren’t. So, primitively prescribing 20 years imprisonment for something you either are or aren’t no matter how much ‘promoting’ is done is bizarre, indeed. 🤦♂️
2. There are no such things as exclusively ‘homosexual acts’. If this term refers to anal/oral sex, then, spoiler alert: millions of heterosexuals engage in these acts, too, so to describe them as exclusively ‘homosexual acts’ makes zero sense. Even if we accept that giving/receiving a BJ or having anal sex is a ‘homosexual act’, you’re really going to imprison someone for life for this? 🤦♂️
3. ‘Aggravated homosexuality’ has the death penalty as its punishment and is described as an offence including ‘serial offenders, same-sex rape, sex in a position of authority or procured by intimidation, sex with persons older than seventy-five, sex with the disabled and mentally ill, and homosexual acts committed by a person with a previous conviction for homosexuality.’
Ok, let’s break this down:
•‘serial offenders’ - presumably this means people who just have consenting sex on many occasions. Death for this? 🤦♂️
•‘same-sex rape’ - as with heterosexual rape, this should obviously be criminalised, but I wouldn’t support death for it.
•‘sex in a position of authority or procured by intimidation’ - in the case of a position of authority, if the other person consents to the sex, I see no issue with it. If intimidation is involved and no consent given, then this should be criminalised.
•‘sex with persons older than 75’ - lol. I see absolutely no reason to criminalise someone for having sex with anyone who is above the age of consent. If that person is 75, 85 or 105, and they consent to the sex, then to institute the death penalty for this is hilariously irrational. 🤦♂️
•‘sex with the disabled and mentally ill’ - lol. If a disabled gay man or woman wants to have sex, where’s the fucking issue? 🤷♂️ Death for this? Yer having a fucking larff, aincha? 🤦♂️ Obviously, the mentally ill could be compromised when it comes to consent, so this needs sensitivity.
•‘homosexual acts committed by a person with a previous conviction for homosexuality’ - so, if someone has been convicted just once for, say, giving a BJ (which isn’t actually a ‘homosexual act’, as we’ve established there is no such thing) to his partner, and he’s caught doing it again, you kill him? Really? 🤦♂️
When you look closely at the Bill, it becomes increasingly ridiculous and barely believable that in 2024 we are criminalising people for simply having consensual adult sex. 🤦♂️
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Act (2023) prescribes up to twenty years in prison for ‘promotion of homosexuality’, life imprisonment for ‘homosexual acts’, and the death penalty for ‘aggravated homosexuality’.
1. How, exactly, can you ‘promote’ homosexuality? This isn’t about trying to persuade people to become gay, as if you are trying to persuade people to vote for you, or persuade people to buy a new whizz-bang, fancy-pants vibrator (ijumpjudy has just put in her order - extra batteries included 😉); that’s impossible. It’s not like you can ‘catch’ homosexuality like you can catch a virus, any more than you can ‘catch’ heterosexuality. You are either gay or you aren’t, just as you are heterosexual, or you aren’t. So, primitively prescribing 20 years imprisonment for something you either are or aren’t no matter how much ‘promoting’ is done is bizarre, indeed. 🤦♂️
2. There are no such things as exclusively ‘homosexual acts’. If this term refers to anal/oral sex, then, spoiler alert: millions of heterosexuals engage in these acts, too, so to describe them as exclusively ‘homosexual acts’ is stupid and renders the description invalid. Even if we accept that giving/receiving a BJ or having anal sex is a ‘homosexual act’, you’re really going to imprison someone for life for this? 🤦♂️
3. ‘Aggravated homosexuality’ has the death penalty as its punishment and is described as an offence including ‘serial offenders, same-sex rape, sex in a position of authority or procured by intimidation, sex with persons older than seventy-five, sex with the disabled and mentally ill, and homosexual acts committed by a person with a previous conviction for homosexuality.’
Ok, let’s break this down:
•‘serial offenders’ - presumably this means people who just have consenting sex on many occasions. Death? Don’t be silly. 🤦♂️
•‘same-sex rape’ - as with heterosexual rape, this should obviously be criminalised, but I wouldn’t support death for it.
•‘sex in a position of authority or procured by intimidation’ - in the case of a position of authority, if the other person consents to the sex, I see no issue with it. If intimidation is involved and no consent given, then this should be criminalised.
•‘sex with persons older than 75’ - lol. I see absolutely no reason to criminalise someone for having sex with anyone who is above the age of consent. If that person is 75, 85 or 105, and they consent to the sex, then to institute the death penalty for this is quite nonsensical. 🤦♂️
•‘sex with the disabled and mentally ill’ - lol. If a disabled gay man or woman wants to have sex, where’s the fucking issue? 🤷♂️ Death for this? Yer having a fucking larff, aincha? 🤦♂️ Obviously, the mentally ill could be compromised when it comes to consent, so this needs sensitivity.
•‘homosexual acts committed by a person with a previous conviction for homosexuality’ - so, if someone has been convicted just once for, say, giving a BJ (which isn’t actually a ‘homosexual act’, as we’ve established there is no such thing) to his partner, and he’s caught doing it again, you kill him? Really? 🤦♂️
When you look closely at the Bill, it becomes increasingly ridiculous and barely believable that in 2024 we are criminalising people for simply having consensual adult sex. 🤦♂️
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Jegawazzock 🤡: “There has always been opposition to homosexuality, yet it has never hindered our progress.”
Lol. ‘Progress’, he says.
Africa is the only continent where decriminalization of homosexuality has not been widespread since the mid-twentieth century. Africa is also, traditionally, the POOREST (in 2024, the top 10 poorest countries were all African - Global Finance), LEAST LITERATE (in 2024, of the 10 most illiterate countries, 9 were in Africa - World Atlas), LEAST DEMOCRATIC (in 2023, of the 30 least democratic countries, 16 were in Africa, 11 were in Asia and 3 were in South America - Statista), MOST RELIGIOUS (in 2024, of the 10 most religious countries, 7 were in Africa - Ceoworld) and the MOST CORRUPT (in 2023, of the 20 most corrupt countries, 11 were in Africa - Statista) continent on the planet.
Keep on keeping up with that ‘progress’, dude! 👍✊🤦♂️
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
“I might be what you groomers call ‘asexual’”. (Ijumpjudyy) Wow! 😮That’s interesting, groomer! Never thought you’d reveal your hand like that, groomer. K, you don’t dig sex and because you don’t dig sex you ban consenting adults, who do dig sex, from having sex, groomer!? I fear revealing that has put the final nail in your intolerant ⚰️, groomer! 😂 👍😉 Hey, groomer! I’m proud to be a cucumber hater and not be so silly, irrational, intolerant and thick as to ban cucumbers, groomer! 🤣🥒 She also admitted this recently: “Imagine being an atheist.” Having previously denied her God credentials she scores yet another own 🥅! 🤡 😂
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Act (2023) prescribes up to twenty years in prison for ‘promotion of homosexuality’, life imprisonment for ‘homosexual acts’, and the death penalty for ‘aggravated homosexuality’.
1. How, exactly, can you ‘promote’ homosexuality? This isn’t about trying to persuade people to become gay, as if you are trying to persuade people to vote for you, or persuade people to buy a new whizz-bang, fancy-pants vibrator (ijumpjudy has just put in her order - extra batteries included 😉); that’s impossible. It’s not like you can ‘catch’ homosexuality like you can catch a virus, any more than you can ‘catch’ heterosexuality. You are either gay or you aren’t, just as you are heterosexual, or you aren’t. So, primitively prescribing 20 years imprisonment for something you either are or aren’t no matter how much ‘promoting’ is done is bizarre, indeed. 🤦♂️
2. There are no such things as exclusively ‘homosexual acts’. If this term refers to anal/oral sex, then, spoiler alert: millions of heterosexuals engage in these acts, too, so to describe them as exclusively ‘homosexual acts’ is bizarre, indeed. Even if we accept that giving/receiving a BJ or having anal sex is a ‘homosexual act’, you’re really going to imprison someone for life for this? 🤦♂️
3. ‘Aggravated homosexuality’ has the death penalty as its punishment and is described as an offence including ‘serial offenders, same-sex rape, sex in a position of authority or procured by intimidation, sex with persons older than seventy-five, sex with the disabled and mentally ill, and homosexual acts committed by a person with a previous conviction for homosexuality.’
Ok, let’s break this down:
•‘serial offenders’ - presumably this means people who just have consenting sex on many occasions. Death? Bizarre, indeed. 🤦♂️
•‘same-sex rape’ - as with heterosexual rape, this should obviously be criminalised, but I wouldn’t support death for it.
•‘sex in a position of authority or procured by intimidation’ - in the case of a position of authority, if the other person consents to the sex, I see no issue with it. If intimidation is involved and no consent given, then this should be criminalised.
•‘sex with persons older than 75’ - lol. I see absolutely no reason to criminalise someone for having sex with anyone who is above the age of consent. If that person is 75, 85 or 105, and they consent to the sex, then to institute the death penalty for this is quite bizarre, indeed. 🤦♂️
•‘sex with the disabled and mentally ill’ - lol. If a disabled gay man or woman wants to have sex, where’s the fucking issue? 🤷♂️ Death for this? Yer having a fucking larff, aincha? 🤦♂️ Obviously, the mentally ill could be compromised when it comes to consent, so this needs sensitivity.
•‘homosexual acts committed by a person with a previous conviction for homosexuality’ - so, if someone has been convicted just once for, say, giving a BJ (which isn’t actually a ‘homosexual act’, as we’ve established there is no such thing) to his partner, and he’s caught doing it again, you kill him? Really? 🤦♂️
When you look closely at the Bill, it becomes increasingly ridiculous and barely believable that in 2024 we are criminalising people for simply having consensual adult sex. 🤦♂️
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It’s a process. It’s a process whereby gay men and women simply gain the right to have consensual adult sex free of fear of criminalisation involving fines, imprisonment or worse, wherever they are on the planet.
The following is a timeline list of when and where homosexuality was decriminalised. This list is interesting as it gives the lie, somewhat, to the idea that decriminalising homosexuality is a wholly (or even a mainly) ‘Western thing’, so apparently feared by lube-head here. To pick some examples at random to demonstrate this: Turkey decriminalised in 1858; Japan in 1882; Taiwan in 1912; Thailand in 1956… while it was as late as 1967 in England/Wales and, remarkably, even later in the country of my birth, Scotland, in 1981. Equally remarkably, it was as late as 1993 before it was decriminalised in Washington DC, another 10 years after this before all the states had decriminalised. Added to this is the notable fact that in the list where homosexuality has never been illegal, almost every single country, without exception, is non-Western.
•Never been illegal
Aruba, Netherlands
Benin
Burkina Faso
Cambodia
Central African Republic
Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Republic of the Congo
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Christmas Island, Australia
Curaçao Curaçao, Netherlands
Djibouti
Equatorial Guinea
French Polynesia, France
Indonesia
Ivory Coast
Laos
Madagascar
Mali
Mayotte, France
Federated States of Micronesia
New Caledonia, France
Niger
North Korea
Rwanda
Sint Maarten, Netherlands
South Korea
Philippines
Vietnam
Wallis and Futuna, France
•18th Century
1791: Andorra
France Kingdom of France (includes Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Réunion, San Barthélemy, Saint Martin, and Saint Pierre and Miquelon)
Haiti Saint-Domingue (Haiti)
1793: Monaco
1794: Luxembourg
1795: Belgium
1798: Canton of Geneva, Switzerland
Ticino, Switzerland
Vaud, Switzerland
Valais, Switzerland
•19th Century
1811: Netherlands
1822: Dominican Republic
El Salvador
1830: Brazil
1832: Bolivia
1853: Argentina
1858: Turkey
1864: San Marino
1869: Suriname
1871: Guatemala
Mexico
1882: Japan
1890: Italy
Vatican City
1899: Honduras
•20th Century
1912: Taiwan
1924: Peru
1933: Denmark (includes Greenland and Faroe Islands)
1932: Poland
1934: Uruguay
1940: Iceland
1942: Switzerland
1944: Sweden
1951: Greece
Jordan
Palestine
1956: Thailand
1961: Hungary
1962: Czechoslovakia
Illinois, United States
1967: England and Wales, United Kingdom
1968: Bulgaria
East Germany
1969: Canada
West Germany
1971: Austria
Connecticut, United States
Costa Rica
Finland
1972: Colorado, United States
Oregon, United States
Norway
1973: Delaware, United States
Hawaii, United States
Malta
North Dakota, United States
1974: Massachusetts, United States
Ohio, United States
1975: East Timor
New Hampshire, United States
New Mexico, United States
South Australia
1976: Australian Capital Territory
Bahrain
California, United States
Indiana, United States
Maine, United States
Washington (state), United States
West Virginia, United States
1977: Croatia
Montenegro
Slovenia
South Dakota, United States
Vermont, United States
Wyoming, United States
1978: Guam, United States
Iowa, United States
Nebraska, United States
New Jersey, United States
1979: Cuba
Spain
1980: American, United States
New York, United States
Pennsylvania, United States
1981: Colombia
Scotland, United Kingdom
Victoria, Australia
1982: Northern Ireland, United Kingdom
1983: Guernsey, United Kingdom
Northern Mariana Islands
Northern Territory, Australia
Portugal
Wisconsin, United States
1984: New South Wales, Australia
1985: Virgin Islands, United States
1986: New Zealand
1988: Israel
1989: Falkland Islands, United Kingdom
Liechtenstein
1990: Jersey, United Kingdom
Paraguay
Western Australia
1991: Bahamas
Abkhazia
Hong Kong
Queensland, Australia
South Ossetia
Ukraine
1992: Estonia
Isle of Man, United Kingdom
Kentucky, United States
Latvia
1993: Washington, D.C. District of Columbia, United States
Gibraltar, United Kingdom
Guinea-Bissau
Republic of Ireland
Lithuania
Mongolia
Nevada Nevada, United States
Norfolk Island, Australia
Russia
1994: Kosovo
Belarus
Bermuda Bermuda, United Kingdom
Serbia
1995: Albania
Moldova
1996: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Portuguese Macau
North Macedonia
Romania
Tennessee, United States
1997: China
Ecuador
Montana, United States
Tasmania, Australia
Venezuela
1998: Cyprus Cyprus
Georgia, United States
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Republika Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Rhode Island, United States
South Africa
Tajikistan
1999: Chile
Maryland, United States
2000: Akrotiri and Dhekelia, United Kingdom
Azerbaijan
Georgia (country)
•21st Century
2001: Anguilla, United Kingdom
Arizona, United States
Bosnia and Herzegovina
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands, United Kingdom
Minnesota, United States
Montserrat, United Kingdom
Saint Helena
Pitcairn Islands, United Kingdom
Turks and Caicos Islands, United Kingdom
2002: Arkansas, United States
Transnistria
2003: Armenia
Tokelau, New Zealand
United States (nationwide)
2004: Cape Verde
2005: Marshall Islands
2007: Nepal
Vanuatu
2008: Nicaragua
Panama
2010: Fiji
2012: Lesotho
São Tomé and Príncipe
2014: Northern Cyprus
Palau
2015: Mozambique
2016: Belize
Nauru
Seychelles
2018: India
Trinidad and Tobago
2019: Botswana
2020: Gabon
2021: Angola
Bhutan
2022: Antigua and Barbuda
Barbados
Singapore
Saint Kitts and Nevis
2023: Cook Islands, New Zealand
Mauritius
2024: Dominica
Namibia
2
-
2
-
The Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Act (2023) prescribes up to twenty years in prison for ‘promotion of homosexuality’, life imprisonment for ‘homosexual acts’, and the death penalty for ‘aggravated homosexuality’.
1. How, exactly, can you ‘promote’ homosexuality? This isn’t about trying to persuade people to become gay, as if you are trying to persuade people to vote for you, or persuade people to buy a new whizz-bang, fancy-pants vibrator (ijumpjudy has just put in her order - extra batteries included 😉); that’s impossible. It’s not like you can ‘catch’ homosexuality like you can catch a virus, any more than you can ‘catch’ heterosexuality. You are either gay or you aren’t, just as you are heterosexual, or you aren’t. So, primitively prescribing 20 years imprisonment for something you either are or aren’t no matter how much ‘promoting’ is done is bizarre, indeed. 🤦♂️
2. There are no such things as exclusively ‘homosexual acts’. If this term refers to anal/oral sex, then, spoiler alert: millions of heterosexuals engage in these acts, too, so to describe them as exclusively ‘homosexual acts’ is bizarre, indeed. Even if we accept that giving/receiving a BJ or having anal sex is a ‘homosexual act’, you’re really going to imprison someone for life for this? 🤦♂️
3. ‘Aggravated homosexuality’ has the death penalty as its punishment and is described as an offence including ‘serial offenders, same-sex rape, sex in a position of authority or procured by intimidation, sex with persons older than seventy-five, sex with the disabled and mentally ill, and homosexual acts committed by a person with a previous conviction for homosexuality.’
Ok, let’s break this down:
•‘serial offenders’ - presumably this means people who just have consenting sex on many occasions. Death? Bizarre, indeed. 🤦♂️
•‘same-sex rape’ - as with heterosexual rape, this should obviously be criminalised, but I wouldn’t support death for it.
•‘sex in a position of authority or procured by intimidation’ - in the case of a position of authority, if the other person consents to the sex, I see no issue with it. If intimidation is involved and no consent given, then this should be criminalised.
•‘sex with persons older than 75’ - lol. I see absolutely no reason to criminalise someone for having sex with anyone who is above the age of consent. If that person is 75, 85 or 105, and they consent to the sex, then to institute the death penalty for this is quite bizarre, indeed. 🤦♂️
•‘sex with the disabled and mentally ill’ - lol. If a disabled gay man or woman wants to have sex, where’s the fucking issue? 🤷♂️ Death for this? Yer having a fucking larff, aincha? 🤦♂️ Obviously, the mentally ill could be compromised when it comes to consent, so this needs sensitivity.
•‘homosexual acts committed by a person with a previous conviction for homosexuality’ - so, if someone has been convicted just once for, say, giving a BJ (which isn’t actually a ‘homosexual act’, as we’ve established there is no such thing) to his partner, and he’s caught doing it again, you kill him? Really? 🤦♂️
When you look closely at the Bill, it becomes increasingly ridiculous and barely believable that in 2024 we are criminalising people for simply having consensual adult sex. 🤦♂️
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
“You know that most cases of FGM are consensual, right? Many people are raised in environments where this practice is normalised, so they don’t see any issue with it. They consent to it.” (Jegamespeed5399) 🤦♂️
Don’t be silly, son. Do you honestly think 12 year old girls in their right minds are going to willingly consent to having their genitals lopped off? That admission alone demonstrates where you are at. 🤦♂️Can you not think for yourself, for once, dude? I suggest to you, aged 12, that we chop off your cock for no reason. Do you consent to this? 🤦♂️
“Listen, hun, after school today me and your mother are going to take you to have a completely unnecessary medical procedure involving having your clitoris hacked off thereby leading to your being unable to have sexual pleasure ever and leading to the following possible complications:”
•severe pain
•excessive bleeding (haemorrhage)
•genital tissue swelling
•fever
•infections e.g., tetanus
•urinary problems
•wound healing problems
•injury to surrounding genital tissue
•shock
•vaginal problems (discharge, itching, bacterial vaginosis and other infections)
menstrual problems (painful menstruations, difficulty in passing menstrual blood, etc.)
•scar tissue and keloid;
•sexual problems (pain during intercourse, decreased satisfaction)
•increased risk of childbirth complications (difficult delivery, excessive bleeding, caesarean section, need to resuscitate the baby, etc.) and newborn deaths
•need for later surgeries: for example, the sealing or narrowing of the vaginal opening (type 3) may lead to the practice of cutting open the sealed vagina later to allow for sexual intercourse and childbirth (deinfibulation). Sometimes genital tissue is stitched again several times, including after childbirth, hence the woman goes through repeated opening and closing procedures, further increasing both immediate and long-term risks
•psychological problems (depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, low self-esteem, etc.).
•death.
“Now, darling, would you like to consent to this completely unnecessary procedure?” 🤦♂️
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Act (2023) prescribes up to twenty years in prison for ‘promotion of homosexuality’, life imprisonment for ‘homosexual acts’, and the death penalty for ‘aggravated homosexuality’.
1. How, exactly, can you ‘promote’ homosexuality? This isn’t about trying to persuade people to become gay, as if you are trying to persuade people to vote for you, or persuade people to buy a new whizz-bang, fancy-pants vibrator (ijumpjudy has just put in her order - extra batteries included 😉); that’s impossible. It’s not like you can ‘catch’ homosexuality like you can catch a virus, any more than you can ‘catch’ heterosexuality. You are either gay or you aren’t, just as you are heterosexual, or you aren’t. So, primitively prescribing 20 years imprisonment for something you either are or aren’t no matter how much ‘promoting’ is done is bizarre, indeed. 🤦♂️
2. There are no such things as exclusively ‘homosexual acts’. If this term refers to anal/oral sex, then, spoiler alert: millions of heterosexuals engage in these acts, too, so to describe them as exclusively ‘homosexual acts’ makes zero sense. Even if we accept that giving/receiving a BJ or having anal sex is a ‘homosexual act’, you’re really going to imprison someone for life for this? 🤦♂️
3. ‘Aggravated homosexuality’ has the death penalty as its punishment and is described as an offence including ‘serial offenders, same-sex rape, sex in a position of authority or procured by intimidation, sex with persons older than seventy-five, sex with the disabled and mentally ill, and homosexual acts committed by a person with a previous conviction for homosexuality.’
Ok, let’s break this down:
•‘serial offenders’ - presumably this means people who just have consenting sex on many occasions. Death for this? 🤦♂️
•‘same-sex rape’ - as with heterosexual rape, this should obviously be criminalised, but I wouldn’t support death for it.
•‘sex in a position of authority or procured by intimidation’ - in the case of a position of authority, if the other person consents to the sex, I see no issue with it. If intimidation is involved and no consent given, then this should be criminalised.
•‘sex with persons older than 75’ - lol. I see absolutely no reason to criminalise someone for having sex with anyone who is above the age of consent. If that person is 75, 85 or 105, and they consent to the sex, then to institute the death penalty for this is hilariously irrational. 🤦♂️
•‘sex with the disabled and mentally ill’ - lol. If a disabled gay man or woman wants to have sex, where’s the fucking issue? 🤷♂️ Death for this? Yer having a fucking larff, aincha? 🤦♂️ Obviously, the mentally ill could be compromised when it comes to consent, so this needs sensitivity.
•‘homosexual acts committed by a person with a previous conviction for homosexuality’ - so, if someone has been convicted just once for, say, giving a BJ (which isn’t actually a ‘homosexual act’, as we’ve established there is no such thing) to his partner, and he’s caught doing it again, you kill him? Really? 🤦♂️
When you look closely at the Bill, it becomes increasingly ridiculous and barely believable that in 2024 we are criminalising people for simply having consensual adult sex. 🤦♂️
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Act (2023) prescribes up to twenty years in prison for ‘promotion of homosexuality’, life imprisonment for ‘homosexual acts’, and the death penalty for ‘aggravated homosexuality’.
1. How, exactly, can you ‘promote’ homosexuality? This isn’t about trying to persuade people to become gay, as if you are trying to persuade people to vote for you, or persuade people to buy a new whizz-bang, fancy-pants vibrator (ijumpjudy has just put in her order - extra batteries included 😉); that’s impossible. It’s not like you can ‘catch’ homosexuality like you can catch a virus, any more than you can ‘catch’ heterosexuality. You are either gay or you aren’t, just as you are heterosexual, or you aren’t. So, primitively prescribing 20 years imprisonment for something you either are or aren’t no matter how much ‘promoting’ is done is bizarre, indeed. 🤦♂️
2. There are no such things as exclusively ‘homosexual acts’. If this term refers to anal/oral sex, then, spoiler alert: millions of heterosexuals engage in these acts, too, so to describe them as exclusively ‘homosexual acts’ makes zero sense. Even if we accept that giving/receiving a BJ or having anal sex is a ‘homosexual act’, you’re really going to imprison someone for life for this? 🤦♂️
3. ‘Aggravated homosexuality’ has the death penalty as its punishment and is described as an offence including ‘serial offenders, same-sex rape, sex in a position of authority or procured by intimidation, sex with persons older than seventy-five, sex with the disabled and mentally ill, and homosexual acts committed by a person with a previous conviction for homosexuality.’
Ok, let’s break this down:
•‘serial offenders’ - presumably this means people who just have consenting sex on many occasions. Death for this? 🤦♂️
•‘same-sex rape’ - as with heterosexual rape, this should obviously be criminalised, but I wouldn’t support death for it.
•‘sex in a position of authority or procured by intimidation’ - in the case of a position of authority, if the other person consents to the sex, I see no issue with it. If intimidation is involved and no consent given, then this should be criminalised.
•‘sex with persons older than 75’ - lol. I see absolutely no reason to criminalise someone for having sex with anyone who is above the age of consent. If that person is 75, 85 or 105, and they consent to the sex, then to institute the death penalty for this is hilariously irrational. 🤦♂️
•‘sex with the disabled and mentally ill’ - lol. If a disabled gay man or woman wants to have sex, where’s the fucking issue? 🤷♂️ Death for this? Yer having a fucking larff, aincha? 🤦♂️ Obviously, the mentally ill could be compromised when it comes to consent, so this needs sensitivity.
•‘homosexual acts committed by a person with a previous conviction for homosexuality’ - so, if someone has been convicted just once for, say, giving a BJ (which isn’t actually a ‘homosexual act’, as we’ve established there is no such thing) to his partner, and he’s caught doing it again, you kill him? Really? 🤦♂️
When you look closely at the Bill, it becomes increasingly ridiculous and barely believable that in 2024 we are criminalising people for simply having consensual adult sex. 🤦♂️
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
There is a direct correlation between countries which belong to the Commonwealth, and therefore have previously been under British rule, and countries that still have homophobic biphobic and/or transphobic legislature in their constitutions. 25% of the world’s population (2.4 billion people) currently live in a country belonging to the Commonwealth, however they make up a disproportionately large 50 per cent of countries that still criminalise homosexuality. There are currently 64 countries (out of 195) in the world that criminalise homosexuality. Of these 64, almost half (29) belong to the Commonwealth.
Africa
Algeria
Cameroon ✅
Chad
Comoros
Egypt
Eritrea
Eswatini (Swaziland) ✅
Ethiopia
Gambia ✅
Ghana ✅
Guinea
Kenya ✅
Liberia
Libya
Malawi ✅
Mauritania
Morocco
Nigeria ✅
Senegal
Sierra Leone ✅
Somalia
South Sudan
Sudan
Tanzania
Togo ✅
Tunisia
Uganda ✅
Zambia ✅
Zimbabwe ✅
Asia, including the Middle East
Afghanistan
Bangladesh ✅
Brunei ✅
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Kuwait
Lebanon
Malaysia ✅
Maldives ✅
Myanmar
Oman
Pakistan ✅
Palestine
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Sri Lanka ✅
Syria
Turkmenistan
United Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan
Yemen
Americas
Grenada ✅
Guyana ✅
Jamaica ✅
St Lucia ✅
St Vincent & the Grenadines ✅
Oceania
Kiribati ✅
Niue
Papua New Guinea ✅
Samoa ✅
Solomon Islands ✅
Tonga ✅
Tuvalu ✅
✅ Commonwealth member
The vast majority of the remaining 64 are majority Islamic. What does this prove? Well, organised religion plays a vital role in the criminalisation of homosexuality. However, the key takeaway for the purposes of this video, is that in Uganda, prior to the widespread introduction of Christianity (Uganda is currently 84% Christian/14% Muslim) homosexuality was largely tolerated and not legislated for within the various tribal denominations. At worst, in most cases, it was merely ignored. Yet here we have Museveni telling the ‘evil West’ to butt-out, when the criminalisation of homosexuality was brought in directly on the back of a Bible (…and a Quran!) by a bunch of Westerners! Hypocrisy? 🤦♂️
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@broncostearsaremostsavory2041 Look man. I literally have no skin in this game. I’m simply an impartial onlooker here. Agnostic, apolitical, anational. What I see is a man to whom nobody has said ‘no’ for 22 years, a man drunk on his own power, a man possibly half-crazed, a man wanting belated revenge for losing the Cold War in 1989. The key point in all this for me, however, is the invasion of a self-governing, sovereign territory. We have to take each case on its individual merits, regardless of the faults of either side. I, as it stands, do not think the USA/NATO should enter the fray directly in a military sense, as I, like countless others, simply fear this will trigger a nuclear nightmare no one wants. Putin, at 70, with not much to lose, I suspect doesn’t give a shit at this point. One final point: Zelensky is not some Christ-figure, as he appears to be for so many other uncritical observers. I repeat, he has silenced critics, has blood on his hands in East Ukraine and has closed certain media outlets unfavourable to his cause. But here, he’s doing right by the majority of Ukrainians it seems, and standing up to Putin and the Russians. But it really is just Putin here, I suspect.😳
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sdrfz Oh Jesus, Douglas, you’re such a bore. Your ‘curvature’ argument only works at certain distances. Here, the camera filming the plane is clearly rather close to the plane. Therefore ‘curvature of the Earth’ doesn’t come into it, son. Basic stuff you should have picked up in elementary school but, alas, clearly didn’t. No. The 2 planes you see are simply on a climbing trajectory because they have both just taken off. Now, give it up, son, as you are coming across as a desperate, pitiful, egregiously crushing dullard.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@lavendereucalyptus3225 Huh? Wtf are you on about? No one forced me to get a vaccine. I chose to get one. China has no effective vaccine; therefore it can use this as a way to herd people like sheep and tell them what they can and cannot do. China is a dictatorship. There are dozens of dictatorships on this planet. I will say this: the West isn’t perfect (far from it), but if the choice is between a life in France, or Spain, or the UK, or America, or Canada, or just about any other Western country you care to mention, or a life in Iran, or China, or Russia, or any other benighted dictatorship you care to mention, I’m choosing the former 100 times out of a 100.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The rest of the world looks on this and weeps. Why do so many other developed nations not have America’s baleful gun culture? Germany, the UK, Japan, for example, don’t seem to have this terrible issue with gun crime, and yet there is relative peace in terms of general society, and certainly mass killings are rare. America needs to seriously look at its Second Amendment. There are only three countries that have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms: Mexico, Guatemala, and the United States. Although Mexico and Guatemala both have a constitutional right to bear arms, the US is in a league of its own simply because it is the only country without restrictions on gun ownership in its constitution. After the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, it inspired other countries around the world to provide their citizens with the right to own guns. However, only 15 constitutions (in nine countries) ever included an explicit right to bear arms. They are Bolivia, Costa Rica, Colombia, Honduras, Nicaragua, Liberia, Guatemala, Mexico, and the US. All of those countries, excluding Mexico, the US, and Guatemala, have since rescinded the constitutional right to bear arms. So, America is the outlier here in terms of citizens’ rights to bear arms. Does it want to continue this, and put up with its horrible mass killings? Or does it want to consider repealing the Second Amendment, thereby allowing the average American citizen to breathe that much easier in the ‘land of the free’?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ah, that old desperate tune, ‘nationalism’, causing all the trouble again. When will we, as a species, get beyond random, arbitrary accidents of birth as key markers of our identity? Along with organised religion, nationalism is the greatest self-destructive, baleful blight we ever had the misfortune to invent as a species. Other civilisations from galaxies far, far away look at us and weep for us. We are primitive children in the kindergarten of the Universe. One day, we shall graduate to adulthood, and a certain maturity and look back in time at how silly we were. As it is, we have murder, mayhem, internecine destruction all on an accident of birth or an imagined daddy in the sky. Really? 🌌
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Scene: The Putin household. After a hard day at the war office, Vladimir relaxes in a chaise-longue, glass of vodka in hand, his feet attended to by one of his ‘boys’ giving him a sensual foot massage. The phone rings
Puppet-master: “Good evening, Vladimir. All going well, I trust?”
Putin: “Yes, Sir. We ramped things up a little today. Threw in talk of chemical weapons into the fray. Just softening them up a little.”
Puppet-master: “Quite. Remember: divide and conquer. Always the mantra. The ‘good’ guys versus the ‘bad’ guys. You are playing your role quite perfectly, Vladimir.”
Putin: “Thank you, Sir.”
Puppet-master: “I will shortly be in touch about next steps. Let’s just say this is going to be one helluva ‘fireworks’ display. Well, I’ll say goodbye for now. A bit of Netflix and chill is it, tonight?”
Putin: “Not sure, Sir. I may listen to a bit of ABBA.”
Puppet-master: “Ah, how apt. Your ‘Waterloo’ is imminent. Good-night, Vladimir.”
Vladimir: “Good-night, Sir.”
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
My main issue is not with Peterson himself (I agree with much of what he says, leaving aside the God nonsense, which he himself almost guiltily, shamefacedly promulgates when asked about), no, my main issue is with the nauseating, sycophantic fanboys (and occasional girl) who leap to even the teeniest, tiniest criticism of him and his ideas like a pack of rabid dogs for hire. It’s hilarious and sick-inducing simultaneously; almost as if they have been hypnotised into believing Peterson cannot possibly be wrong about anything , and anyone who suggests he is, must be shot-down, silenced. Ironically, the very thing they claim ‘woke’ culture does to Peterson himself. All very bizarre.😳
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Romello_Pietersz I would add that for you, a believer in Jesus Christ, for whom there is little historical evidence, beyond the self-contradictory gospels, and one or two jejune, unreliable mentions in the Judeao-Roman chronicles, it’s a bit hypocritical parading your double-standards, as you seek scientific evidence for something like evolution, but you don’t and can’t apply those same rigorous standards to your religious beliefs. As far as I can see, the Jesus believers believe in someone who actually, more than likely, never historically existed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@spikey288 In a way, he’s a victim here, too; a victim of humanity’s war machine. The key issue here is whether he was ‘following orders’ or not. If he wasn’t, he deserves what’s coming to him; if he was, then the one whose orders he was following is principally the guilty party here. Kafka would’ve had a field-day with this stuff.
The above was my original quote, with an addition. Ok, I concede this: I should have included the word ‘principally’ in the original quote to obviate any misunderstanding in pedants such as you. However, this addition does not intrinsically alter my position, which is, if I were trying this lad and his C.O., I’d be penalising the latter more than the former.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
🥅 Yeah, Southgate’s squad Pickford the World Cup looks decent. Wilson see. England should Grealish the chance to Mount a Sterling effort for the trophy. Qatar can be a Dier place though, where they throw Stones at you for getting Kaned on narcotics and being a little Trippier than usual, an unsteady Walker. It’s very black and White. You don’t want to offeHend, erson you could be locked up. Alcohol is almost illeGal. Llagher is frowned upon. Maguire they like this? Religion. Follow the religious Coady the country. This all rings a Bellingham sure. Shaw, it seems Maddison against Allah in Qatar, but some of us believe in the Pope. We like a tipple, drinking some dRamsdales and other liquid Phillips, then getting some Foden. As to the football, let’s hope England aren’t too Rashford the victory. They need to rAlexander-Arnold on to their patience and not be rushed for quick results in a tRice. By the end of it all, Southgate will be hoping he’s not for the Saka. ⚽️
2
-
2
-
If you ask me why , from me to you , on the long and winding road of life as we travel across the universe , you have to think for yourself for tomorrow never knows . What goes on is on the tip of my tongue , while the fool on the hill for whom happiness is a warm gun , is a nowhere man . A day in the life can mean misery for many as your mother should know . You know what to do , what goes on when in spite of all the danger you seek the inner light . For today, here comes the sun , and you have a ticket to ride , and that means a lot . Now and then we need a revolution where we twist and shout and everything feels like a helter skelter . Yesterday has gone; like being back in the USSR , but that was then and I’m glad it’s all over . The magical mystery tour of life you embrace as like a little child where you feel as a child of nature . If the taxman knocks run for your life , for he can’t let it be . Do you want to know a secret? . For the day tripper(s) amongst you, the beautiful dreamer (s), know that all things must pass . You may be crying, waiting, hoping , for everything to come together in your golden slumbers , or you may carry that weight , through the rain , but if you’ve got trouble , always remember Lucy in the sky with diamonds or a little junk , and soon you’ll be glad it’s all over . Every little thing is all part of the walk . Wait , tell me what you see ? A blackbird from a window . Like it you are free as a bird . So if at anytime at all you see a world without love , here, there and everywhere , and it’s all too much , and a day in the life feels like eight days a week , know that there’s a place called the end .
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I feel it’s important to put the non-meat eating case here, as while Leo has some fun with this lady, it’s an important issue for us all. For full disclosure, I eat fish and occasionally some meat, so I’m in no way coming at this as an ardent
vegetarian/vegan. I just felt it important to lay out, as objectively as possible, the case for vegetarianism. One of the major arguments that killing animals for food is wrong is that animals are actually incredibly sentient and remarkably intelligent. Animal welfare, therefore, should be a major concern of humans. While animals might not have achieved the same level of community or civilization that humanity has (and while yes, they are below humans in the food chain), this should not diminish their intelligence and their ability to feel. Animals not only feel pain but have memories, family connections, and connections to humans too. We see some animals (such as dogs or cats) as worthy of our protection, whereas other animals of equal intelligence, such as pigs, are killed for food. The reality is that humans have distanced themselves from their own food chain, and therefore from the suffering caused to animals through meat-eating. We see eating meat as a human tradition; however, we are no longer hunter-gatherers living off the odd animal that happens to cross our paths. The meat industry has been industrialized, and it uses masses of land, grain, and water to produce meat for our supermarket shelves. The problem is that with more meat-eaters, the land where beef can be reared or where chickens or pigs are kept is fast diminishing. The argument is that raising meat for slaughter is simply not sustainable because it’s inefficient. Beef is the worst culprit, and the amount of food and water that goes into its production could be used to produce a higher quantity of plant-food, which gives humans the same number of calories or nutrients. As the human population increases, this problem will only become more noticeable, as there is more competition for ever scarcer resources. Another environmental argument against meat-eating is the huge contribution livestock has towards CO2 emission. Methane gas is a byproduct of raising animals (particularly cattle), and eating red meat has a large carbon footprint that’s not always obvious to consumers. Cutting down on red meat lowers the demand for meat and can contribute towards a lower carbon footprint and fewer CO2 emissions. Are humans designed to eat meat? In part, we have evolved to eat cooked meat; however, we have also evolved to eat plants. Despite how conditioned we are to consuming meat, our bodies don’t need us to keep eating meat to survive. All observing Hindus and Sikhs, for example, avoid eating meat, and often all animal products altogether. In fact, we can find all of the essential nutrients (including proteins and B12) that we traditionally source from meat in many different plants and plant-based products. For instance, soy is a huge source of plant-based protein. If humans do have dominance over the animals and are top of the food chain, shouldn’t we make a moral decision to help our planet and help our animals? Rather than using our intelligence as a right to kill other creatures, the argument is that we can use our intelligence as a force for positive change and a move towards sustainability and improved animal welfare. Should humans take the moral high ground rather than justifying questionable existing moralities? Perhaps with the onset of lab-grown
meat we will be able to continue consuming meat guilt-free. The reality of eating animals is that many of the ethical and moral arguments that defend it are, in fact, rather weak in the face of the pro vegetarianism argument. While sustainable farming practices can eliminate the environmental arguments against meat-eating, you still have the cost factors to consider and the morality of killing animals. The tradition argument has no real logical basis either; after all, just because humans have been doing something for millennia doesn’t make it the right thing to do (you can justify slavery with this very same argument).
Ultimately though, the question of should I eat meat is currently a personal one. We each have our own belief systems, our own reason(s) to not eat meat or to eat meat. However, with an ever-crowded world and shrinking resources, environmental factors may prove to be an overpowering argument for plant-based diets in the future. The key for me in all this is education. People should be free to make up their own minds and not coerced one way or the other. 🐮
2
-
Always mistrusted overtly ‘political’ comedy of any stripe. Never understood this human compulsion many seem to have to put all their political eggs into a single basket. When I assess my views on each given topic I find I am ‘liberal’ in some, ‘green’ in others, ‘conservative’ in more and ‘socialist’ in a few. The rest I haven’t made my mind up yet. Blake’s dictum I always have in mind here when it comes to these things which, for me, are under constant review: The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind. Or even better, this from Emerson, which captures perfectly the predicament of those toeing a party line, come what may: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood. Or this from the glorious Whitman: Do I contradict myself?/Very well then I contradict myself/I am large, I contain multitudes.) To bind yourself to ideas one day, and then to be doomed to defend them come what may, is not worthy of the thinking human being.😳
2
-
2
-
@0:49 It was an unpaid debt the UK owed Iran; Kearse conveniently omits to mention this key point. @0:55 So only working-class people go on hunger-strikes? Staggering inverted snobbery. @1:15 Kearse again talks of the £400 million pounds like it was a ransom; it wasn’t; to repeat, it was a debt we hadn’t paid for 44 years, and although this was unable to be paid due to EU sanctions relating to Iranian nuclear weapons, this doesn’t absolve the UK of money they should have returned to Iran at the earliest opportunity decades ago. @1:53 For the third time Kearse talks of the money as a kind of ransom; it wasn’t, but that for him to admit that would be to let the facts get in the way of his tendentious narrative. @2:32 Yes, she was kidnapped by Iran but they made it explicitly clear from the outset that the price of her release would be the money the UK owed Iran; so, technically she’s being held in Iran, but because the UK didn’t pay a debt they should have decades ago, and if they had paid this debt, she would have been released. Ergo, the UK is actually very culpable here. @6:19 I think that’s the 5th time Kearse repeats this as if it wasn’t money we already owed the Iranians - it’s a bit like me lending Kearse hundred quid back in the day, requesting my loan back, him refusing, so I kidnap his mother until he pays me what I’m due. If he pays me my money back, he can have his mother back. Simple. @6:30 Yes, but why Leo? You’re really not very good at this, are you? @6:52 And again. @7:18 Wow! Spectacular case of patronising your audience there, Leo. You might not know what Farsi is, but don’t presume that for the rest of us. @7:32 Hypocrite alert! ‘Classism’ in others, when Kearse has just laid into Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s husband for his ‘fast’. Pot, kettle, black doesn’t cover it. @10:14 This point is Kearse’s Achilles Heel; with a script he’s like a C-rate Frankie Boyle without the real insight; on GB News he comes across as laboured, uninformed and clearly not able to operate well without a script; ad-libbing wittily seems to be beyond him. Even on stage he embarrassingly reads about 10 minutes of a routine which is on YouTube; someone with 23 other hours in the day who can’t be arsed learning his lines smacks of laziness at best, cocky arrogance at worst.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@satanicbbc5090 Wow! You got some serious sh*t going on there, man. Ok, deep breath:
When you say Icke is an ‘obvious controlled opposition’, I have no idea what you are on about. Who is ‘controlling’ him and what is he ‘opposing’? Before you answer these questions you need to think about the credible evidence you’re going to supply, and not just assert stuff willy-nilly, because I don’t operate like that.
‘Every single BBC presenter looks like a transgender’. Well now. Even accepting your dubious assumption that there is a transgender ‘look’ we can all agree upon, how about I throw out a few names at complete random as they pop into my head: Dan Walker; Naga Munchetty; Jane Hill; Kirsty Wark; Huw Edwards; Martine Croxall; Fiona Bruce; Sophie Rayworth; Victoria Coren Mitchell. Ok, with the best will in the world I look at every one of these people and to me they look to a man and a woman what they are. In other words, I have no idea wtf you are on about when you say every BBC presenter looks transgender. To then state with no apparent shame that this is ‘scientifically observable’ is clearly patent nonsense, and I suspect you may know this, notwithstanding your apparent ingenuousness. But here is my main point: every single BBC presenter is transgender. So what?
As to Icke himself? To me he just looks like any other ordinary middle-aged bloke.
The reason I suspect Icke has undergone certain mind-expanding experiences is quite simply I speak from direct experience here, and when he discusses some of this stuff it chimes remarkably closely to what I underwent.
As to Icke’s family ‘looking transgender’, well, let’s see: Gareth - from the pictures I have seen he appears to look like an everyday bloke. Ditto Jaymie. Similarly, his daughters look like ordinary women.
Your point about certain religions and genital mutilation I concur with and I, personally, abhor the practices, if they are done without the consent of those being operated on. To then bring in the BBC on this theme? No idea again wtf you’re on about. Asserting stuff without corroborating evidence doesn’t cut it with me as I’m sure you’ll have gathered by now.
I agree that media and entertainment have an influence on our behaviours but I, for one, don’t feel unduly ‘manipulated’. If you do, then that’s your issue.
Your penultimate point just sounded like the ramblings of a pub bore so I’ll skip that.
Your final 3 points are simply incorrect. 3 of my close family are in the medical profession and I can assure you there are such things as ‘viruses’. You are free to believe what you want. Nuclear weapons exist as I’m sure you’ve seen the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings and their aftermath. Again, if you reject this credible evidence you are free to do so. Space exploration again gives us overwhelming evidence that this has occurred and continues. If you choose to refute this, that is your prerogative.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@albaptiste8691 Yeah, but that’s tough titty for Putin, isn’t it? If a majority of Ukrainians want to become part of NATO, and they seem to do so, then Putin doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The main issue here, however, is that boring old baleful blight on humanity that we just can’t seem to shake: defining ourselves as a result of an accident of birth. Unless, and until we can ditch primitive ideas revolving around meaningless, arbitrary, random accidents of birth, along with unverified, unverifiable daddy’s in the sky, then we have little chance of getting out of here alive, given what we can now do to each other with advanced technology.😳
2
-
2
-
Why not just say ‘respect human beings for helping other human beings’? When you nationalise this you are guilty of perpetuating a large part of the very problem that started this in the first place. The trouble humanity has, and has always had, is one of self-definition. Before ‘human being’, first and foremost, we seem to want to put this or that random accident of birth, or this or that imagined daddy in the sky. Individually, this is not an issue. However, when we band together with others on the basis of random accidents of birth and imagined daddies in the sky, the trouble starts. Nietzsche looked at this in the eye and called it: In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. With an outlier like Putin, we need to develop a workable system of removing such dictators from positions of power. In the kindergarten, the staff don’t allow a single bully to ride roughshod over others as whim dictates. Why, then, do we allow this as adults? 👀
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This came through on the wires from Kepler 452b. I thought I’d pass it on.
“The trouble humanity has, and has always had, is one of self-definition. Before ‘human being’, first and foremost, you seem to want to put this or that random accident of birth, or this or that imagined daddy in the sky. Individually, this is not an issue. However, when you band together with others on the basis of random accidents of birth and imagined daddies in the sky, the trouble starts. One of your wise ones, Nietzsche, looked at this in the eye and called it: In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. With an outlier like Putin, you need to develop a workable system of removing such dictators from positions of power. In the kindergarten, the staff don’t allow a single bully to ride roughshod over others as whim dictates. Why, then, do you allow this as adults?”👀
2
-
@indiannumis3718 Look, mate, I don’t know how you operate, but I tend to go with the idea of self-determination. I don’t care what country you are, NETO, NATO or whatever, if you vote for something on a majority, then that vote is carried. I will repeat this once more in case you didn’t get it the first time: there are no real geopolitics involved here in the traditional sense. We are dealing here with a power-crazed, unchallenged, murderous bully. There is no reasoning with their kind. They don’t respond to the softly, softly approach. That is the worry. Unless a ‘lone wolf’ takes him out then I’m not exaggerating when I say that I don’t think this freak will hesitate to spark a nuclear conflagration. He’s 70. He, personally, has little to lose. We are at a very dangerous moment in the world’s history.👀
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This came through on the wires from Kepler- 452b. I thought I’d pass it on.
“The trouble humanity has, and has always had, is one of self-definition. Before ‘human being’, first and foremost, you seem to want to put this or that random accident of birth, or this or that imagined daddy in the sky. Individually, this is not an issue. However, when you band together with others on the basis of random accidents of birth and imagined daddies in the sky, the trouble starts. One of your wise ones, Nietzsche, looked at this in the eye and called it: In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. With an outlier like Putin, you need to develop a workable system of removing such dictators from positions of power. In the kindergarten, the staff don’t allow a single bully to ride roughshod over others as whim dictates. Why, then, do you allow this as adults?”👀
2
-
2
-
@kevin6293 Don’t you see that the world’s problem is people like you? Don’t you see this? Ok, let me spell it out: The trouble humanity has, and has always had, is one of self-definition. Before ‘human being’, first and foremost, we seem to want to put this or that random accident of birth, or this or that imagined daddy in the sky. Individually, this is not an issue. However, when we band together with others on the basis of random accidents of birth and imagined daddies in the sky, the trouble starts. Nietzsche looked at this in the eye and called it: In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. With an outlier like Putin, we need to develop a workable system of removing such dictators from positions of power. In the kindergarten, the staff don’t allow a single bully to ride roughshod over others as whim dictates. Why, then, do we allow this as adults? As to you, Kev, you are an accident of birth, born somewhere. You could have been born anywhere, so why are you taking unearned credit just because your mother plopped you out here and not over there? Huh? You seem to limit what you are. Many (most, alas) others do this and that’s what causes the world’s problems, fundamentally. Can I direct you to the wise words of that great philosopher, Pogo: we have met the enemy and he is us. 👀
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Full disclosure: I’m agnostic, apolitical and anational. I just don’t want to be incinerated in a thermonuclear annihilation scenario, that’s all. But this needs to be said, if we are to have any understanding as to what is going on here: Putin is not mad; rather, he considers NATO/USA/West an encroaching mortal threat, and I think he has a point. It’s too easy to label him as Vlad the Mad, the unhinged, sexually repressed freak (he’s that, all right - if he just came out he could save us a whole lotta trouble here), but he’s simply acting according to his vision of the world. Where I and Vlad part company, is where he invades self-governing, sovereign territories, no matter how much he may think he has a claim on them, like in some geopolitical version of a child-custody battle. However, it’s vitally important we don’t paint Putin as this non-human ‘monster’; he’s far from that.😳
2
-
2
-
Two beers, or not two beers, that is the question/Whether Wetherspoon’s is nobler in the mind for supper/The gin slings and Arrow beers of outrageous fortune/Or to the Guildford Arms for a seabreeze with bubbles/And after much dozing, upend them./Bleary eye, counting sheep; To count sheep, perchance sea bream,-aye, there’s the chub/For in that sleep with sheep, what bleats may come/When we have scuffled with that immortal gargoyle/Must give us cause-there’s the respect that makes Calamity Jane a good trouble and strife/For who would buy the Walnut Whips and Blackthorns before bedtime?/The transgressor’s thong, the loud man’s costume/The hunger-pangs of no pies, bruv, the in-law’s dismay/The insolence of Microsoft Office, and the burns/That in-patients merit if blameworthy rakes/When peeing oneself when a night-bus brakes/On a bare Bodmin/Dr Who would Daleks fear/To grunt and sweat under a weary wife/Such that the bedspread heave with every breath/The undiscovered pantry, from whose Bournville chocolate/No wanderer returns, befuddles the willpower/And makes us rather take those pills we have/Than buy others that we know not of?/Thus non-science doth make blowhards and those in thrall/And, thus, the non-native hue and cry of revolution/Is Wikileaked o’er with the frail mast and bought/And Starship-Enterprises of weight, myth and (spur-of-the-) moment/From the mouth of this Bard, their direct-currents turn and fly/And choose the name of inaction …
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Putin: “But, brother, we are fellow Slavs, speak the same language, you must be with me, no?”
Ukrainian: “‘Brother’ is overstating it. Cousins, at best, is how I would put it. Yes, I speak your language, but you don’t speak mine, and no, I must go where my conscience dictates, not where you dictate. Understand this and we can get along.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@memeticist Just for the record, I have travelled extensively in Muslim majority countries: in not a single one of them did they ask me to wear what they were wearing. I’d have been horrified if they had. Also, I lived in the middle-east for a year in a very Jewish-inflected place, culturally and religiously, and not once did anyone there ask me to ditch my agnosticism for Judaism, for that would have just been fascist madness on their part. If you want a certain level of immigration, and I would imagine you would, given our ageing, stagnating population, then you have to accept them in toto. If they are speaking English, paying their way, and obeying the law, and yes, performing the social niceties most of us do anyway, then you have no right to demand any more than this.😳
2
-
@memeticist You need to be more specific as to whom you’re referring as I’m at a loss to grasp who you are talking about. I’ve lived and worked with people from all sorts of cultural backgrounds (born both in these places and born here: Indians; Chinese; Pakistanis; Japanese; French; Spanish; Americans etc.,) and all of these people were just peacefully living their lives, paying their way, obeying the law, going about their day, as that’s how it goes in 2022 UK. Yes, there are elements of the Muslim population who seem to want to live slightly separately, but, my fundamental point throughout this whole thread pertains here too: if they are breaking no laws, you can do jack about it. You can’t have a pluralistic, free, liberal society without a certain messiness. Put it this way: I’d rather have what we have with all the colour, interest and, yes, messiness that entails, than the horrendously monocultural alternative you appear to be championing. 👀
2
-
@memeticist Aside from an infinitesimal, minuscule minority, I can’t think of anyone in my 50 years on the planet who didn’t do these basics things. If you’re talking of some Islamic people, and I suspect you are, then these are a minority. I live in Glasgow, it has a well-integrated Muslim population (but they still honour their cultural traditions), and in my living and working with Muslim men and women I can’t think of a single one, man or woman, who didn’t shake hands upon meeting another. As to the burka thing, the principal point here is the woman’s choice to wear what she wants. There are no laws being broken if she chooses to wear a burka. I would go further, though, even if she were being peer-pressured into this, you can do nothing about it, unless laws of the land are being broken. If I force my wife to wear jeans every other day, are you going to stop me? No. Therefore you have no right to interfere with the lives of others if they are obeying the laws of the land, as 99% of us do anyway. 😳
2
-
@memeticist Exactly, you are talking about the things 99% of us do most of the time, anyway. So, if this is all you’re asking, fine. Say hello, be polite, try to get on. All this is self-evident; so self-evident we, most of us, do it anyway.👀 If a few don’t do it, are you going to constrain everybody else’s freedom to behave how they choose if they are not breaking any laws, on the basis of these outlying rogues? I certainly hope not.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@memeticist I agree. I’m for controlled immigration, not open door. I said this to someone else, but you can have it too, as this is an important issue of personal freedom that you seem to be blithely ignoring. Here goes: I repeat, if you come to live here, you learn the language, obey the laws and pay your taxes, that’s all I ask of you, so why are you asking for more than this from me? You call me ‘arrogant’; I’d call you arrogant and presumptuous to assume other people want to think, feel and live as you do. If I'm not harming you, and I’m not, as I’m obeying the law, then where’s the problem?😳 If you think about this a little you’ll see how fascistic it is to demand others conform to your random, arbitrary checklist of ‘how to be’. What are you going to prescribe for me? That I worship your God? What if I’m agnostic? Last time I checked there was such a thing as freedom of religion/worship and freedom to not worship any God(s) at all. Are you going to demand I eat what you eat? Don’t be daft. That’s just hypocritical, as in today’s Britain everyone eats everything anyway, and from all corners of the world as you might have noticed. Are you going to demand I wear what you wear? Really? You’re going to be that authoritarian that you’ll prescribe what I wear? That’s not the sort of society I want to live in. Are you going to tell me what to read, or that I must listen to the music that you like to listen to, or have the same hobbies as you just to make me ‘fit in’ with your staggeringly arrogant rules as to how I should live? Get real. Human beings are more complicated than your cramped Kenland vision of them. You need to think again. I will say this once more, as it bears repeating: if I am speaking the language, paying my taxes and breaking no laws you have absolutely no right to demand anything more of me. You need to deal with this basic fact of freedom in a pluralistic society. If you can’t then that’s just tough. Go and create your own Kenland republic if you must; just know that I won’t be joining you. You sound far too narrow to me, only wanting ‘people like you’ surrounding you; only people speaking with the same accent as you. I’ve lived in several other countries and travelled extensively in every continent, learning to speak 4 other languages along with my native language, and in not one of the places I visited/lived, did I do any more than I ask of others: language, law, taxes. You need to get over a random, arbitrary accident of birth as a marker of your identity. It means nothing. And if you’re going to mould your being to an accident of birth, fine, you are free to do what the fuck you want within the law, just don’t presume to dictate this for others, as it’s nothing less than a kind of fascism. I don’t know your politics, but I’m willing to bet you’re right-wing. I can usually smell this at 10 paces and I’m scenting that here with you. I’m not going to be told by anyone how I am to live my life if I’m harming no one. How you even feel you have the brass neck and temerity that you can demand this of another person in a free society is beyond me. It’s also mighty sinister, so think on. First and foremost, I’m a free-thinking, free-feeling, autonomous human being. I would not dream of arrogantly, haughtily, fascistically asking any other person to change their behaviour/way of life just to suit me. If I invite you to my home, all I ask is that you are polite (obey the laws), try to speak the language therein, and if you’re feeling generous, pop a few pennies into the donation jar. Wear what you want, eat what you want, read what you want, worship whatever God you want, listen to what you want, do what you want, within the law. Given all this, and in conclusion, you need to hold your peace if I’m obeying the law, paying my way and speaking the language. Anything else I’m doing is, quite frankly, none of your fucking business.😳
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Mcgilead Mcgilead I repeat, if you come to live here, you learn the language, obey the laws and pay your taxes, that’s all I ask of you, so why are you asking for more than this from me? You call me ‘arrogant’; I’d call you arrogant and presumptuous to assume other people want to think, feel and live as you do. If I'm not harming you, and I’m not, as I’m obeying the law, then where’s the problem?😳 If you think about this a little you’ll see how fascistic it is to demand others conform to your random, arbitrary checklist of ‘how to be’. What are you going to prescribe for me? That I worship your God? What if I’m agnostic? Last time I checked there was such a thing as freedom of religion/worship and freedom to not worship any God(s) at all. Are you going to demand I eat what you eat? Don’t be daft. That’s just hypocritical, as in today’s Britain everyone eats everything anyway, and from all corners of the world as you might have noticed. Are you going to demand I wear what you wear? Really? You’re going to be that authoritarian that you’ll prescribe what I wear? That’s not the sort of society I want to live in. Are you going to tell me what to read, or that I must listen to the music that you like to listen to, or have the same hobbies as you just to make me ‘fit in’ with your staggeringly arrogant rules as to how I should live? Get real. Human beings are more complicated than your cramped McGilead vision of them. You need to think again. I will say this once more, as it bears repeating: if I am speaking the language, paying my taxes and breaking no laws you have absolutely no right to demand anything more of me. You need to deal with this basic fact of freedom in a pluralistic society. If you can’t then that’s just tough. Go and create your own McGilead republic if you must; just know that I won’t be joining you. You sound far too narrow to me, only wanting ‘people like you’ surrounding you; only people speaking with the same accent as you. I’ve lived in several other countries and travelled extensively in every continent, learning to speak 4 other languages along with my native language, and in not one of the places I visited/lived, did I do any more than I ask of others: language, law, taxes. You need to get over a random, arbitrary accident of birth as a marker of your identity. It means nothing. And if you’re going to mould your being to an accident of birth, fine, you are free to do what the fuck you want within the law, just don’t presume to dictate this for others, as it’s nothing less than a kind of fascism. I don’t know your politics, but I’m willing to bet you’re right-wing. I can usually smell this at 10 paces and I’m scenting that here with you. I’m not going to be told by anyone how I am to live my life if I’m harming no one. How you even feel you have the brass neck and temerity that you can demand this of another person in a free society is beyond me. It’s also mighty sinister, so think on. First and foremost, I’m a free-thinking, free-feeling, autonomous human being. I would not dream of arrogantly, haughtily, fascistically asking any other person to change their behaviour/way of life just to suit me. If I invite you to my home, all I ask is that you are polite (obey the laws), try to speak the language therein, and if you’re feeling generous, pop a few pennies into the donation jar. Wear what you want, eat what you want, read what you want, worship whatever God you want, listen to what you want, do what you want, within the law. Given all this, and in conclusion, you need to hold your peace if I’m obeying the law, paying my way and speaking the language. Anything else I’m doing is, quite frankly, none of your fucking business.😳
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Raahiba Furthermore, I’m not sure what you mean by ‘ their country’ beyond the notion of living and working there. And if you go to live and work there, which you have, then it’s just as much your country by virtue of living/working there, no? I don’t buy this idea that just because of an accident of birth you have a first dibs claim, as it were, on the territory you were randomly, arbitrarily born into. For this same reason, I don’t get the idea of nationalism and national pride. Everyone could have been born anywhere, so to take a kind of unearned ‘pride’ or credit for this accident of birth I’ve never understood. I’m not willing to hitch my identity to a politically drawn line on a map, I suppose.😳
2
-
@Raahiba You are entitled to your opinion, but all I would say is that if you move to another country, you learn the language, obey the laws and pay your taxes. If you are doing these three essential things, as I see them, then no one, in my opinion has any right to demand anything more from you. If you choose to change to ‘fit in’ better, then that, of course, is different. But for there to be a kind of enforcement of this, then this I can’t countenance. Of course you try to swing along with the culture of a country as best you can, for why wouldn’t you? Most people in the real world (including me) do alter our behaviours, subtly and not so subtly, for a quiet life, whatever culture/country we happen to live in. However, my fundamental point is about freedom and on this basis why should someone, anyone impose on me about anything if I’m breaking no laws, speaking the language and contributing to the economy? In the same way that I wouldn’t dream of telling any other human being, whoever they are, and wherever they are, to radically or even mildly alter their behaviour to suit me, just to make me more comfortable (assuming they are not threatening me), then I don’t expect others to demand this of me. 😳
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jamesmason8436 Yeah, man. But again you’re missing my point (wilfully or otherwise). If I’d gone to live in Iraq I would have learned Arabic, kept the laws, but not ditched my agnosticism and converted to Islam. If I’d gone to live in India, I would have learned Hindi, obeyed the laws but not chucked my agnosticism to convert to Hinduism. If I had gone to Japan, I would have learned Japanese, kept the laws but not discarded my agnosticism and converted to Shinto. If I had gone to Thailand, I would have learned Thai, kept the laws, but not jettisoned my agnosticism for Buddhism. If I had gone to China, I would have learned Chinese, followed the laws, but not chucked my agnosticism for atheism. Neither, in any of these places would I feel the need (unless I freely wanted to, of course) to bend my very being in a cultural sense to fit some pre-conceived, abstract, nebulous notion of ‘Iraqiness’, ‘Indianness’, ‘Japaneseness’, ‘Thainess’ or ‘Chineseness’. I am a human being, not some robot ready to be culturally moulded to fit some sinister, top-down imposed idea of how I should be when living somewhere, anywhere. Just for the record, in all the places other than the UK I lived in I was able to be an independently-acting, self-contained actor. I don’t identify with a ‘tribe’, and I feel that’s where you and I have our biggest difference. As I see it, you seem to have pretty set notions as to how others should behave (and particularly how they should behave on the patch of land you were randomly, arbitrarily born on). I’m here to tell you that it doesn’t work like that. What’s more, if there is an element of ghettoisation with some Muslims in the UK, then so be it. No one said the world was a clean-lined, perfect sort of place. What are you going to do about it? Force them to live and think as you do? You don’t dig multiculturalism. That’s fine. I just wish you’d been a better-faith player and baldly stated this much sooner. Beyond this there is nothing much more to say as I fear, like planes going around Heathrow after an aborted landing in a storm, we are merely repeating ourselves ad nauseam.😳
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Camelot House ‘Privileged visitor’?! What are you on about? Do you realise how racist and exclusionary that sounds. How am I, a Muslim, born here in the UK a ‘privileged visitor’? Huh? ‘Rules and standards’? Well, if you mean obeying the law that is self-evident. What else you could be talking about I have no clue. I’m 50. Been around the block. Worked with Muslims, lived with Muslims, been friends with Muslims. In not one of these cases were any of them ‘fighting to change their adopted country to their previous way of life’, as you put it. Apart from anything else they were mostly born here, so they had no previous fucking way of life to resort to. But even the ones that weren’t born here were doing nothing of which your scaremongering epithet suggests. It seems you see Muslims as a monolithic entity. They are not. If you are a racist and suspect Islam itself, no matter the Muslim in question, just admit this and we can save a lot of time. I, personally, have no time for any organised religion, but I have no right stopping another from practising ‘freedom of worship’, and that’s as it should be. Reading you, it’s almost as if Muslims should have to forfeit their faith as a condition of entry to the UK. If you’re going to go down that authoritarian road then you’re going to have to look at all the other non-indigenous faiths in the UK. Are you prepared to do this? 🧐
2
-
@olasmith8132 Get real. I lived in Belgium for 2 years. Beyond speaking French and obeying the law I did nothing consciously to assimilate/integrate. Why do people assume other people should have to radically change their very way of being if they go to live somewhere else? If you’re not harming anyone and, as I say, breaking no laws I argue that you are free to live as you wish. I lived in France for a year. Are you going to force me to sing the Marseillaise and salute the tricolour? No. And that’s as it should be. So why are you asking people who come here that they have to bend every sinew to be some non-existent, abstract version of a ‘Brit’? I was born in the UK. As far as I can see most Muslims who were born here are no less ‘British’ than I am, whatever the fuck that means anyway. I also spent a year in America. I had the language so all I had to do was keep my head down and obey the law. That I did. Now, if you are telling me there are some rogue, some outlying Muslims who come to the UK with nefarious purposes, then, yes, there are. However, there are dubious people from every creed and none, of every race and none, who come here for nefarious purposes. The vast majority of my dealings in my life with Muslims have been dealings of nothing but mutual tolerance, friendliness, and, if you’re talking ‘nationalism/patriotism’, in the majority of cases these people were more strongly ‘British’ in that sense than I am, as I see an accident of birth an utterly pointless, random, arbitrary, and very, very dangerous thing to hitch my identity to. I, like you, like every Muslim who happens to come here could have been born anywhere. Why you, or anyone else, are claiming territorial rights over others who were also born here is bizarre indeed. If they are living within the law, you need to hold your peace, otherwise you become a very pernicious factor in stoking unnecessary bad faith between different people. If, I, a Muslim, am born in the UK, pay my taxes, and I live within the law then you have nothing to say to me. If I happen to pray to Mecca 5 times a day, and you have an issue with that, well, tough; get over it.😳
2
-
@jamesmason8436 ‘Liberals like me’ - lol. Massive assumption there, chummo. However, I’ve just gone to the dictionary definition and: Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), democracy, secularism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and a market economy. Now, pal, which of these, if any, do you not espouse, and if none, are you not a liberal, too?😳 Also, you’re being slightly patronising assuming I can’t have a qualitative experience of Muslims within a culture/society just because there are a few fewer up here in Scotland. I’ve lived in France, USA, and Belgium, and in all these societies, I was in contact with Muslims. I would also add that in the USA I was pleasantly surprised at the way most Muslims were integrated into society, but I’m sure this is mainly due to that country’s emphasis on patriotism/nationalism, something I generally look askance at as I place utterly no truck in an accident of birth as a determiner of my identity and in terms of ‘pride’. Pride, for me, is something you earn the right to feel; not something handed to you just because your mother plopped you out somewhere and not somewhere else. I’m sure this will be anathema to you, dare I say, the conservative amongst us.
2
-
@jamesmason8436 Your principal problem as I see it, mate, is you’re having issues with the concept of a multicultural Britain. You’re just going to have to deal with this as this is how it’s going to be for the rest of your and my life. Personally, in general, I find the UK to be a pretty successful example of multiculturalism in action, notwithstanding the inevitable deficiencies. We have built our economy for the past 70 years on migrant labour, so you can’t have your cake and eat it. These immigrants from all corners of the world have, in my opinion, indubitably enhanced the UK, making it a relatively prosperous, far more interesting and diverse place that it would be without the colours, foods, languages, customs and, yes, religions, brought by these incomers. If you’re not a ‘believer’ in the multiculturalism of 21st century Britain, and I suspect you’re not, then you should have stated this from the outset and we could have saved ourselves a whole lot of trouble. I will repeat this though, you do seem to have a real bee in your bonnet about a part of the Muslim population, and perhaps the Muslim population in toto. That’s one of the things with multiculturalism: you get all the wonderful variety, and so inevitably within that pick and mix variety there will be flavours more to your taste than others. Like you, I have no time whatsoever for organised religion, but the only reason you’re not picking on Christianity, as far as I can see, is racial. You are culturally closer to Christianity, I’m assuming, so you’ve picked on the ‘funny foreigner’s’ brand. Why not go for Sikhs or Hindus or any other of the UK’s religions? You’ve picked Islam, I would suggest, as you’re intolerant of some of their cultural practices, and what’s more, they are carrying out these practices within your sight-line. That’s what living in a multicultural society means: looking at others and tolerating the difference. You should try it some day, pal.😉
2
-
@jamesmason8436
‘Their ideology is migrant in origin then inherited by/imposed upon successive generations’, you say. I say, so what if it’s ‘migrant in origin’? And? Your point? I don’t believe it actually is for the majority of 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation. I live in Glasgow and we have a sizeable Muslim community here completely integrated, living and working in the community, very often holding the top jobs in medicine and the law. You just sound downright racist when you blithely say their ideology is ‘migrant in origin’. Even if it were, so what? You can’t do anything about it as far as I can see. Islam in the mainstream form doesn’t ‘impede human rights’ and the issues you mentioned earlier are, in my experience, in the minority. I, personally, work with 3 individuals who are Muslim, one is married to a white Scotsman, another is openly gay, and another is single, but has been partnered with non-Muslim people in the past. You seem to be monomaniacally focusing on a small sub-set which you have noticed and magnified this out of all proportion to the way the majority of Muslims live in the UK today. As I say, here in Scotland, there is little to no sense of ghettoisation and the Muslim community is well integrated. Yes, I do believe that if laws aren’t broken then, yes, that is hunky-dory. Let’s flip this. I’m a Muslim and can’t stand the prevalent drinking culture of the UK. What can I do about this? Nothing. Ditto you with cultural/religious practices you disdain. You have no right to stop anything on this score within the law. You seem to be implying that if you could you would step in here. If Muslims commit crime disproportionately you need to quote that statistic, not just assert it. Even if they did, again, so what? Whites commit lots of crime, too? Why focus on Muslims? Again, I suggest that if they commit crime and are caught and brought to justice, where’s the issue? As I say, crime is committed by all sorts, from all backgrounds. If there is a small radicalised element then, again, your point is? Are you going to demonise all the followers of a religion for a few black sheep? Your personal experience appears to have tainted your opinion of our Muslim community in the UK, but from my point of view, I’m not seeing what you’re seeing. 🧐 You seem to have the Muslim population of the UK as an obsessive hobby-horse to an almost unhealthy extent judging by the fixation you betray in this thread.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jamesmason8436 Nothing you have said refutes the basic point that most of the people you mention are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens of this country, most of them 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation so you can’t give me that crap about ‘sending them back’. Have you thought about the idea that they may look at aspects of the culture they were born into and not be particularly enamoured of it? Huh? I’m sure you have ‘beliefs’ and ‘practices’ that are anathema to them. But in the final analysis, chum, none of this matters for the quite simple reason that many, if not most, were born here, pay their way, and have just as much right to be here as you do. You might have to just take this one on the chin, pal.🧐
2
-
2
-
@teuzza23 Good points, well made. 👍 I would just add this: I used to be sensitive to criticism about many things I once saw as ‘important’ but through many years have trained myself to not be offended by anyone about anything. I mean that. I used to be unthinkingly patriotic, unthinkingly religious, unthinkingly this or that, and then I re-examined everything and found that the secret to feeling ok with others coming at you for this or that was simply to expand your boundaries of self-definition. I know it sounds a bit sanctimonious so sorry, but it’s literally how I feel now after all these years of breast-beating and shaking my fists at those who ‘offended’ my then God, or my football team, or my country of birth etc. I understand where you are coming from when you talk about being part of an environment where one grew up and forming an emotional attachment, and I do have that, but if someone comes along and slags off Scotland, say, I genuinely am not bothered by it. So what? The not being offended is actually independent of the intent of the individual btw. Even if they intentionally come at me I can remain above it. It’s taken years of mental training though! 😳
2
-
@teuzza23 Yes, but, frankly mate, the only real loyalty I feel is to family. Why? Blood. Even then it’s random and I’m certainly not going to blindly defend them if they commit a heinous crime. For me the 2 greatest disasters for humanity have been national pride and organised religion. Why am I to show more loyalty to people from Edinburgh (my birthplace), than people from Glasgow? Just because I was born in the former? Makes no sense. The greatest problem humanity faces, and has always faced, is the one of ‘taking offence’. Note ‘taking’. No one can be offended against their will. You are fully complicit in the act of ‘being offended’. The only long-term solution to this is obvious. Train oneself to not be offended. By anything. Don’t hitch yourself so tightly to this or that identity (family, tribe, nation, race, religion, sex, sports team etc) such that when someone else says something, anything, about the aforementioned it will be impossible for you to take offence, quite simply as you have refused to subsume so much of your identity in the perceived target another attacks.🤓
2
-
2
-
@mogznwaz Well, how very convenient. You ‘don’t define British culture, if you’re British you know it, recognise it and feel it, it doesn’t have to be explained.’ Really? If it doesn’t have to be explained why are certain people bending over backwards to defend some perceived British culture in the face of others whom they perceive, rightly or wrongly, to be ‘less British’ than the next person? You don’t have to explain it because you can’t fucking explain it. Britain and the idea of Britain is a thousand and one different things and more depending on who you speak to, but not one of these things is ‘intrinsically’ British, and could just as well be found in some other part of the planet. I was born here, have lived in France, Belgium, Israel and the USA, and I’m here to tell you that there is nothing you can name as some perceived part of a ‘British culture’ that you can’t also find in these countries and elsewhere under various similar but different guises. Just asserting that there is a ‘British culture’ without demonstrating it won’t do, sunshine. Every country, as far as I can see in this globalised, interconnected world, is a mix and match version of a whole host of multifarious stuff, but nothing you could necessarily pinpoint as intrinsically, say, ‘British’, or ‘French’ or ‘American’, for example. Tea? Well, you get that in China. Fish and chips? Belgium does these rather well, too. Football? Just about any other place you care to mention does this. I could go on and name every supposedly ‘British’ thing, and could also name this as a thing in more than one other country. I suppose you could argue the case for a kind of collective history, but an actual uniquely distinctive culture? Nah. You might have got away with arguing for distinctive national cultures 100 years ago, but not today. As to me being a ‘British self-loathing twat’, well, that just makes no fucking sense to me. Why anyone takes some kind of unearned pride or unearned credit in a random, arbitrary accident of birth is beyond me. You’re actually, with a straight face, telling me you're ‘proud’ your mother plopped you out on a random, arbitrary patch of territory and not some other random, arbitrary territory? You’ll be telling me next you’d have been ‘proud’ of the moon if your mother had miraculously managed to plop you out there, I suppose? I reserve my feelings of ‘pride’ for self-driven, self-motivated achievements: learning a few languages; learning a few musical instruments; raising a happy, healthy family; that kind of thing. Things that, like, y’know, I’ve actually put some fucking effort into. Being born somewhere and not somewhere else is not an achievement last time I checked. And anyway, why should I be forced to stand up in some kind of weird accident of birth pride, privileging those others who were randomly, arbitrarily born in the same plot of land as I? You’re going to force me to put them before some other people who weren’t born on the same plot as I? I don’t operate like that, pal. That’s just irrational and thinking for the unevolved amongst us. It’s like saying I’m ‘proud’ to be 6ft2 or proud I have size 11 feet. You want me to privilege 6ft 2 people over 6ft1 people? You want me to privilege people with size 11 feet over people with size 10 feet? You have no say where you are born so why the fuck are you taking random credit for this? If you had been born in France, you’d be trumpeting France, if you’d been born in Ukraine, you'd more than likely be willing to kill a few Russians just because they were randomly, arbitrarily born in the land we currently call ‘Russia’? If you’d been born in La La Land you’d be boring on at me about some non-existent La La ‘culture’, that you can’t seem to define but you just somehow magically ‘feel’. Get real. Nationalism, along with organised religion, has been the most egregious baleful blight on our planet that we ever invented as a species. Ideas around it are currently threatening our continued existence as a species as we speak. You need to look at the history books, son. Unless we have a critical mass of people defining themselves as first and foremost a human being we’ll be doomed to repeat this crap on an eternal loop ad nauseam. This doesn’t mean to say I’m not willing to defend myself when attacked, but it most certainly does mean that I’m not going to be murdering my species over random acts of birth or random, unverified and unverifiable daddy’s in the sky.😳
2
-
@PibrochPonder I’m still not sure where you’re coming from on this. As I see it, the UK is already a kind of ‘melting-pot’ of different cultures, languages and customs, all held together under the notion of being ‘Brit’, however you want to define that term. Most people are just getting along with their lives, obeying the law and paying their way. If you are saying that there are extremist elements of certain groups, then yes. But just because of a few bad apples, are you going disbar the vast majority of others from being able to live their life in a culturally multifaceted UK? My main three points have always been learn the main language, pay your way, and obey the law. Hasn’t the vast majority of this country been doing this since time immemorial right up to the present day? Human beings are messy. No one said it’s easy to swing along with people of your ‘own’ skin colour/faith/tradition, let alone someone else with different ideas about these to yours. The vast majority of the UK population is integrated/assimilated according to your terms. So where’s the issue? Aside from the well-known extremist elements of Islam (a minuscule minority), where exactly is the UK not integrated/assimilated? Where are these fault lines, exactly, as I’m struggling to see them?🧐 You can’t have it both ways. The UK is a free, open, pluralistic, liberal democracy, which permits a certain level of immigration. If you want to stop all immigration at source, that’s fine. It’s just not the world I want to live in; that is an insular world where we each define ourselves as tribally and narrowly as possible and looking askance and with mistrust at everyone who happens to not tick the cultural/racial/religious profile boxes that I happen to tick.
2
-
2
-
@PibrochPonder Ok, it looks like ‘indigenous’ is our bone of contention. All I’m saying is that if you are a citizen and you have a referendum on anything , then every citizen has a say. In that case my sister-in-law would have a say. You appeared to suggest, under your indigenous stuff, that she wouldn’t. Fine. She, and others like her get a vote. The whole ‘indigenous’ thing is invidious, for it depends how you define it. You’d have to look at the genes all the way down the line. To me, that’s just a open door for racist theory. I don’t give a fig about your ‘indigenous’ state or otherwise, however you want to define this. I don’t see British citizens as indigenous or non-indigenous, as you appear to. I just see a human. I take each person individually and try not to box them into this or that ethnic/cultural group and I have found this has served me well. As to immigration, I happen to think this is, on balance, a good thing. I am not for open doors, but I’m certainly for substantial controlled immigration and, frankly, as long as they are prepared to work, learn/speak the language and obey the law, I don’t really care where they come from. On balance, I think having a multicultural society is preferable to the alternatives. I don’t want anyone constraining me and asking me to assimilate, so why would I demand that of others? People need to be left free to think and act for themselves and not feel they are being straitjacketed into some assimilated mush. Give me the colour, difference, vibrancy and messiness of a multicultural society than a bland, gray, monocultural one any day of the week. Of course, you will disagree with this. Anyway, I think we’d better stop here as we are just at the risk of repeating ourselves.😳
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@PibrochPonder Yes, but the Clovis people were in the USA before the Native Americans; the ‘English’, as you put it, were/are a mixed race of all sorts: Jutes; Anglo-Saxons; French Normans; Viking Normans; Irish; Scots; Celts; Asians; Africans etc. You’re all over the place, mate. There is no indigenous, ideal ‘English’ person. Doesn’t exist. You need to get with the gig, sunshine.😉 By your logic, no white people should be allowed in Australia, as they are not ‘indigenous’. So, are you going to ask for the deportation of all the white, non-indigenous people of Australia? And New Zealand? 😳
2
-
@PibrochPonder Why are you wilfully misrepresenting what I’m saying? I never said you go somewhere and unlawfully, forcibly install yourself. I’m saying, that within the law, and where circumstances allow, people should be free to move wherever they want. Of course, immigration rules of individual countries will restrain this, but that’s why I said within the law and the prevailing circumstances. Now, I don’t call this ‘colonisation’ in any historical sense of that term, for as far as I can see people are not violently landing somewhere and imposing their will. So, once again, a bunch of Muslims come and live peacefully and lawfully in the UK: where’s the problem? And by the way, you still haven’t cleared up the vital question of just who is ‘indigenous’ to any place you care to mention. For example, I was born in the UK to a French father and an Irish mother. Does that make me ‘indigenous’? I fear you are just making this stuff up as you go along to suit your agenda.😳
2
-
2
-
@PibrochPonder ‘Indigenous’? So how far back do you go, son? Dryopithecus? Ramapithecus? Australopithecus? Homo-Erectus? Homo-Sapiens? Homo-Sapiens-Sapiens? Adam and Eve? Clovis people? Any Native American tribe you care to mention? Where, exactly, does ‘ownership’ come into this timeline? If you’re telling me people own a house within a nationally defined territory then, yes. But I, ‘born’ in the UK, don’t ‘own’ the UK anymore than Emmanuel Macron ‘owns’ France, or Joe Biden ‘owns’ America. And if you consider that I do own the UK, then you need to do more than just assert this, you need to demonstrate it, as from where I’m sitting, I no more ‘own’ the UK than I do the moon.👀
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@outshout1054 My principal issue with Peterson is not the man himself (he, and his ideas are all stolen; have all been said a thousand times before, and been said a thousand times better, more wittily and with more humour); no, my main issue is the gobble-boys (as it seems to be mainly boys, plus a few girls), who are so hair-trigger sensitive whenever their hero is critiqued that they use this criticism to launch into the most vitriolic attacks on whomever is doing the criticising. That’s all. Look, I’ve said all I need to say on this above so I’m not going to repeat myself here. Yes, I have read Maps of Meaning and all the other derivative oeuvre of the man, and I repeat, he is saying absolutely nothing the likes of, say, an Emerson, for example, hasn’t said before, and said much better. As to Peterson and God? Well, on this question he’s just an embarrassment to himself if he expects us to take his crap of shoehorning a belief in Deity without any pretence of engaging the traditional arguments. Here, to me, he’s just a cynical sod, as he smuggles a God into his schema at the age of 55, having hitherto being an atheist, quite simply because he knew he could screw a few more dollars out of his arselicking acolytes.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@actionflower6706 No. It doesn’t really ‘approximate to my problem’, as you put it. I’m agnostic. Previously stated. I have no issue with people believing wtf they want: my issue arises when said people are unable to defend their stance. That’s all. If an unthought-out, cynical, dishonest, theory of God is promulgated by the likes of JP, then I’ll call it. All that said, my real issue, and for the final time, is the unreflective, uncritical, inadmissible hagiographic mass intellectual orgasm over one man’s words. He’s not right about plenty, is right about some stuff, but you can’t tell this from the mesmerised @rse-lickers, who buy his whole creed hook (book), (by)line and s(t)inker. Creeds and schools in abeyance . Ironically, they commit the error they putatively abhor in others, that is they come to the party with the idea that Peterson’s philosophy is a self-contained, internally-consistent credo to be taken in toto. A system in other words. Just like any other system: Marxism; Socialism; Liberalism; Conservatism; Petersonism. They don’t seem to take his ideas one by one, rather they approach every interlocution with another with the assumption, unacknowledged or otherwise, that whatever Jordy says, goes. I’m here to tell them that not all of it does go, and for some reason I can only put down to the fact they have personally invested their very moral/emotional/intellectual being with him (thus blinding themselves to his not so good ideas), they are unable to accept he might be wrong about something, anything. The horrifying misogyny is one of the main manifestations of their ire. The way they nastily, viciously strafe (often in the most personal of terms: looks, why would any man want her ?) any woman who happens to be interviewing Jordy (and thereby explicitly challenging his ideas, ie. just doing her job) is depressing and alarming simultaneously. If people want to follow the quack nostrums of a bloke who, it seems to me, doesn’t have an original thought, fine. Just don’t expect me to grovel in front of you and intellectually abase myself. I’m better than that. Finally, as to the whole religion thing, you seem to be implying I’m a lapsed Catholic. You’re right. But I was never a fully paid-up member of the God-bothering squad (thank Christ), so it’s not felt as a loss. I happen to agree with the following wonderfully coruscating, (yet true if you read it honestly), definition of the God of the Old Testament, the God of Jews, Christians and Muslims: The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. To not believe in that monster is a blessed relief. As you will know by now, Pirsig is one of my faves., so what better way than to end with him on the subject of organised religion (note that, organised religion , I’m open to changing my mind about anything with new evidence coming in, and that includes God): When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called a Religion. Right now, it seems to me there are a few too many folks suffering from the ‘delusion’ that Jordan B Peterson is absolutafucking right about absolutafucking everything.🥸
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@actionflower6706 Furthermore for the record, love, in case this hasn’t been clear, but I am aware the Jordy gobblers like to pile in and defend their man like valiant troops in a lost cause and one easily loses one’s bearings (and toupee) in the unseemly ensuing kerfuffle; however, my animus is not principally a JP-directed animus, so to speak - the man himself I find a bit of a wet-wipe, yes, could do with smiling/laughing a wee bitty more, yes (I’m almost sure he has a sense of humour, but like his God, it’s often missing-in-action), but essentially JP, the man, is just any other nondescript fella you might meet in Aldi on a wet Wednesday afternoon as he (and you, perchance) escapes ‘’er indoors’ for 5 minutes to peruse the fresh plums (in his case, possibly ‘’im indoors’, if the rumours are to be believed - debate for another day perhaps); no, my ire is specifically reserved for the gobbler (and gobbier) lads and lassies (mainly lads), who betray an almighty hair-trigger sensitivity to even the slightest criticism of Jordy’s ideas. If only they would take that big, veiny, hairy, throbbing, engorged monstrosity out of their mouths once in a blue moon and look up. I would only have to look askance at Jordy’s white wine and spritzer and they would be up in arms in the King’s Arms at how I had traduced the mortal character and the cut of the jib of the very saviour of western civilisation as we know it. A mere brush of tweed sleeve against the small Babycham their haloed hero was nursing quietly in the inglenook of the Shepherd’s Crook, and like a snarling bull about to charge at the taunting matador, they would be at my throat and other exposed bits (not to mention my tweed jacket!). Even on the days I had opted not to wear red! This simply shows how insecure these sycophants feel, for anyone sure of their terms, sure of their boy in the race, would not feel the need to come at me like a pack of slavering hounds at the local (illegal) fox hunt (very certainly the ‘unspeakable in full-pursuit of the un(b)eatable’!); no, they would calmly reason with me, and we could discuss this in a quiet corner, away from the fevered hurly-burly of the intoxicated crowd, while I could take the opportunity in the Gents cubicle to reglue my dislodged toupee atop my bonce away from the mad melee. Y’know, as I sit here pondering the marigolds in my window sill, and watching my pussy from afar licking his nether regions with feline gusto, this rather apposite little quotable gobbet hops into my mind like a sprightly rabbit in a Spring meadow; it’s from Pirsig, and in it he was principally going for the rigid, linear, - ‘I am right you are wrong, and what’s more, because you are wrong you are going to eternal Hell!’ - brigade, but I feel it sums up much of the unthinking, scary, impassioned, frankly bollocks, that our man Jordy attracts: You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt. Or as Yeats put it, along similar lines: The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. On a final point of order, what you have against that esteemed institution, the University of Sussex, one can only surmise, (yes, the pebbly Brighton beach is horrendous for one’s haemorrhoids, but this is hardly the fault of the Women’s Studies department of that university) but I fear the trauma it may have caused you might need looking at. Before you ask, no, I don’t have Jordan Peterson’s telephone number. ☎️
2
-
@actionflower6706 By the way, just for the record, my name’s ‘Donald’, not ‘David’, and how do you even know I have a dick? In this age of non-binary, non-gender specific, gender-fluid (urgh! So sticky. And so messy.), cisgender, intersex, agender, anyfrickingenderyouhappentomakeupthatday-gender … to attempt to make the egregious, unverified, and almost certainly unverifiable (in your case) assumption I even dangle a wanger where the sun occasionally shines (in the warmer months when the neighbours are away in Lanzarote), is one mighty presumptuous supposition.🧐
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Jordan Peterson‘s 12 more (God help us all!) rules for life - an appraisal.
Do not carelessly denigrate social institutions or creative achievement. Oh man. Come on! If I can’t slag off the mother-in-law you’ve thereby instantly removed 5% of my reason for getting up in the morning. Similarly, if I see a post-post-modern, abstract-expressionist post-impressionist painting in a gallery I reserve the right to draw a cock and balls over it. I want my artists figurative. Or at the very least, Italian.
Imagine who you could be and then aim single-mindedly at that. Hmm … I’m imagining I could be Jordan Peterson. Oh, wait. The world isn’t big enough to contain TWO identical egos that large!
Do not hide unwanted things in the fog. Especially if John Carpenter is lurking somewhere in that fog.
Notice that opportunity lurks where responsibility has been abdicated. Ok, I think that makes sense. Are you saying that if I refuse to wash the dishes and decline to put the garbage out I’m on a blow-job promise that self same evening? Sounds good to me!
Do not do what you hate. Yay! Jordan Peterson himself is telling me I don’t have to read a single thing he ever writes ever again! Thanks Jordy. 🙏
Abandon ideology. What, abandon the ‘ideology’ of condensing the incredible complexity of human life and existence into 12 cookie-cutter platitudes I once read in a bunch of fortune cookies? That ideology?
Work as hard as you possibly can on at least one thing and see what happens. Well, since the age of about 13 I’ve been actively fulfilling this injunction and it’s nearly fallen off.😳
Try to make one room in your home as beautiful as possible. Can we agree on a corner of one room? A whole room just sounds extravagant and, frankly, a waste of my time when I’ve got rule 7 to be getting on with.😳
If old memories still upset you, write them down carefully and completely. Yes, they do. However, not sure writing them down will help. Can I not just do the more obvious, sensible thing and, er, like, well, forget them?
Plan and work diligently to maintain the romance in your relationship. Yes, I buy my dick flowers at least every other Friday.
Do not allow yourself to become resentful, deceitful, or arrogant. Ha! Ya got me. While I resent no one but the milk-man who ran away with the wife back in 1987 (I’m still working through it), and I have deceived no one since that time I pretended I was Jesus at a convention of atheist/agnostics, the ‘arrogant’ one still niggles. Yes, I have to admit that when in an almighty pickle, I do sometimes think: ‘What would Donald Lamont do?’ Sorry.
Be grateful in spite of your suffering. Well, one of my avatars kinda said this about 2,600 years before Saint Jordan palmed it off as one of his own. But hey! plagiarism never hurt anybody when you’re trying to fool most of the people most of the time!😁
Note: Jordan Peterson will publish 12 more rules for life when he’s spent all the money he got from gullible fools buying the first 24. 🤔
2
-
Jordan Peterson’s 12 rules for life - an appraisal.
Stand up straight with your shoulders straight. Unless you’re a peeping Tom and need to keep below that wall, otherwise that gorgeous, undressing next-door neighbour may spot you.
Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping. In other words, pick up your own smelly socks, don’t litter, and make your own fucking bed!
Befriend people who want the best for you. Well, this rests on your judgement of others’ character. If that’s shit, you’re fucked.
Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not the useless person you are today. This one totally contradicts the whole idea of self-improvement, for if I’m more useless today than I was yesterday, why am I even trying to self-improve?!
Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them. Well, this assumes that you’re such an insane parental control freak with such a fascistic sense of keeping another in order that it’s not even worth considering, if only to save your own soul. Besides, kids need to make their own mistakes, so tough-titty if the parents can’t take this.
Set your house in order before criticising the world. Well, if you’re a saint, perhaps. If you’re a messy flesh and blood human being then criticising the world is what gets most of us through the day, if the drugs aren’t working.
Pursue what is meaningful, not what is expedient. Yeah, but that makes the enormous, unfounded assumption that any of this means anything whatsoever.
Tell the truth, or at least don’t lie. I’m sorry, but that time my mother caught my porn stash under the bed, I had to lie and pin it on my twin brother, Tommy. Sometimes, lying just is the best policy and those who say otherwise are just liars.
Assume the person you are listening to knows something you don’t. Ok. But this one falls down when it comes to my bank PIN number.
Be precise in your speech. What, ‘precise’ in one’s speech like Mr Jordan ‘why use 1 word when 21 will do?’ Peterson? Give me the conciseness of a Sam Harris any day. I’m sure Adam Sandler will concur.
Do not bother children while they are skateboarding. Unless, that is, they are skateboarding all over your prize flowerbeds; then you can not only ‘bother’ them, but collar them and let them feel your hot garlicky breath on their cheeks.
Pet a cat when you encounter one in the street. Unless, that is, the cat is frothing alarmingly at the mouth.
Now where’s my publishing deal?😳
2
-
@pedanticlady9126 Thank you for laughing.😉Would that your fellow posters could do the same. Laughter sometimes really is the best medicine.😆Well, when all the other options have been exhausted. One final thing folks. Someone here, I forget who (you all meld into one giant Peterson gobble-machine after a while and distinguishing the sound sorts becomes futile), accused me of not getting out enough, communing with nature, that sort of thing. They suggested ‘grass’. Well, how clairvoyant and spooky as my guiding text for 30 years (such that I have such a thing) has been Whitman’s Leaves of Grass .However, it’s not a piece of wisdom from that poem/book I would like to leave you all with, but a little prose number he rustled up in between meeting the ‘trippers and askers.’ You might know it: This is what you shall do; Love the earth and sun and the animals, despise riches, give alms to every one that asks, stand up for the stupid and crazy, devote your income and labor to others, hate tyrants, argue not concerning God, have patience and indulgence toward the people, take off your hat to nothing known or unknown or to any man or number of men, go freely with powerful uneducated persons and with the young and with the mothers of families, read these leaves in the open air every season of every year of your life, re-examine all you have been told at school or church or in any book, dismiss whatever insults your own soul, and your very flesh shall be a great poem and have the richest fluency not only in its words but in the silent lines of its lips and face and between the lashes of your eyes and in every motion and joint of your body. May I kindly, and quite ingenuously, suggest that there is more wisdom in those few lines than the likes of Jordan Peterson can hold a candle to. 🕯 One final, final thing. Ok, I admit it, the 4 degrees malarkey was a lie. I don’t even have that diploma with distinction. However, none of this prevents me from engaging my intellectual critical faculties as and when required. Remember to laugh, children. Good day and fare thee well. 🍁
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MTech07
It’s a bit disingenuous to suggest Peterson is not driving an ‘overt political agenda’ when his sycophantic flag-bearers leap into the breach whenever any perceived (rightly or wrongly) left-leaning challenger of his ideas questions any of what he says. Yes, Peterson himself may not be overtly political (actually, that should be party political as he certainly is political - as far as I can see he is a traditional British-type conservative thinker with liberal trimmings), but in my experience his feverish defenders most certainly are overtly political in their disdain for anything even remotely left of centre. As to his fans worshipping him, well they do from what I read. It’s sycophantically hagiographic in its obsequiousness towards what is, after all, just a failed, flawed human being. His supporters talk of him as the Second Coming. If you don’t believe me I urge you to go to as many YouTube Peterson videos as you can and read the Comments: they are nauseatingly weird in their blinkered devotion to their saint Jordan. As you point out, he’s a flawed human in many ways, just like the rest of us, but you wouldn’t necessarily know this from these comments. One of the most distasteful tactics I have discerned from the Peterson fanatics is a dreadful, depressing misogyny. The bile and vitriol they dispense to, say, Cathy Newman, or Helen Lewis, to take two salient exemplars, is egregious in its bitterness. The hatred, yes hatred, of the distaff-side they evince is disturbing and depressing in equal measure. As to the notion of defending ‘themselves’ when defending Peterson, well, I dig and semi-idolise a whole host of writers, poets, artists, philosophers, but with none of them, am I so hair-trigger sensitive if someone calmly comes along and points out a flaw in their thinking or way of seeing the world. It bespeaks an exaggeratedly unhealthy sense of identification if these people are so sensitive to their hero being criticised, that they feel the need to lash out like children in the playground. A perfect example of this for me is Peterson’s woolly, unthought-out, frankly embarrassing (for a supposedly ‘key’ contemporary thinker) defence of the existence of a God. He’s also disingenuous on this score as he attempts to have his cake and eat it, for he says he doesn’t believe in God per se, but he ‘acts as if God exists’. Well, sorry, but this nebulous, immature thinking will not do. He doesn’t even make a pretence of broaching the traditional arguments for God’s existence: he just blithely declares ‘I act as if God exists’. It’s the type of thinking worthy of a 10 year old. When this is pointed out the rabid Peterson gang pounce, coming to the defence of their hallowed Master (of the University?). In my opinion, the Peterson apologists need to take a chill pill. Yes, he has a few good ideas (although hardly any that are scintillatingly original), as he should, for don’t we all? However, they should learn a little humility when someone comes along and points out the many holes in Peterson’s thinking. One of my theories about many of his more pervervid idolaters is that actually they don’t know much about his thinking at all, and for whatever reason, they have latched on to Peterson, the man, using him as a surrogate father. I’m willing to bet very good money that many of the Peterson fan club are homosexuals (unacknowledged or otherwise) who have lacked a strong father-figure role model in their lives. How else to explain that about 80% of his core followers are male? Women, I suspect, have more intelligence. Ironic really, given the massive misogyny betrayed by many of the Peterson playthings.🥸
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@robinmcara793 Look, man, you wanna know my real stance on all this UFO business? Until the day I get some incontrovertible evidence (vague nebulous lights blinking in a night-sky don’t count) I believe none of it, if ‘believe’ implies ‘visitors from star systems light-years away’. Sorry. Call me rational. Call me evidence-based. Show me a big f*ck-off mothership at 10 paces and I might revise my opinion; but even then I would want more verification than just ocular evidence. As I say, they are (almost undoubtedly) ‘out there’, it’s just that I doubt they are ‘in here’. Now, if you have some evidence hitherto undisclosed that can be peer-reviewed, I’d be interested, but to ask me to believe in ‘alien visitation’ on the current evidence is something I’m not prepared to do. This goes for ghosts and Bigfoot, too, btw. Show me the evidence! I will say this though, and call me irrational and unreasonable if you must, but I do , for some reason, think there is something spooky about certain Crop Circles. Whether it’s alien-based? Well, that’s too much of a leap for me to make.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@katys.7767 Oh, I agree, Switzerland is hardly bordering a Putin-like figure; yet, for Le Pen may win. Just making the point that if we made everyone neutral we could live relatively peaceful lives. Personally, I’m not for centralisation, as a general rule, but what I would have is a UN army made up of all nations as a proportion of their population. Every country would be neutral in practice. If any fuckwit, and there’d be many, I know, got too big for their boots, the UN army steps in and removes them, and violently, if necessary. Just a thought.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Kay says ‘shrowz-buh-ree’, I say ‘shrooz-buh-ree’, shrowz-buh-ree, shrooz-buh-ree, shrowz-buh-ree, shrooz-buh-ree, let’s call the whole thing off. Kay says ‘traanch’, I say ‘tranch’, traanch, tranch, traanch, tranch, let’s call the whole thing off.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Monarchy: an unelected, unaccountable, money-grubbing tribe of hangers-on. Free from public scrutiny, what have they ever really done for us? A symbol of ‘Britishness’? Not my idea of Britishness. The Queen is in a bind, as she can neither truly speak for herself or Britain. She cannot hold herself to account, or politicians to account. Ah, but the Monarchy promotes Britain abroad. Does it? How are we supposed to ‘promote’ democracy abroad through a deeply undemocratic institution? The internal contradiction is insurmountable. Finally, the monarchists chime in with ‘but they are so good for tourism’, but that idea may be demolished in a jiffy: look at France; a Republic for 250 years, and the Versailles Palace is the 3rd most visited tourist site in the whole of France, so the point that the tourist stream to Britain would run dry if we abolished the monarchy is a non-starter.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@umenhuman7573 The other thing I would say on the ‘resources’ question is why Russia should be blundering into other nations and plundering their resources when nature has abundantly gifted Russia with more than enough of these: Russia possesses rich reserves of iron ore, manganese, chromium, nickel, platinum, titanium, copper, tin, lead, tungsten, diamonds, phosphates, and gold … not to mention it being the world’s second largest oil and gas exporter. The ‘resources’ argument doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny to any impartial observer.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The trouble humanity has, and has always had, is one of self-definition. Before ‘human being’, first and foremost, we seem to want to put this or
that random accident of birth, or this or that imagined daddy in the sky. Individually, this is not an issue. However, when we band together with others on the basis of random accidents of birth and imagined daddy’s in the sky, the trouble starts. Nietzsche looked at this in the eye and called it: In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. With an outlier like Putin, we need to develop a workable system of removing such dictators from positions of power. In the kindergarten, the staff don’t allow a single bully to ride roughshod over others as whim dictates. Why, then, do we allow this as adults? 👀
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
While observing the bedlam being played out daily on our screens, I couldn’t help but be struck by how eerily similar this whole farrago is to Kubrick’s Dr Strangelove , with a slight tweaking of point-of-view, and flipping of roles, in which America is Russia and Russia is America. In Kubrick’s masterpiece, American Brigadier General Jack D Ripper (Putin), has been driven insane with paranoia by events of the Cold War, (in Putin’s case insanity and monomaniacal Post-Cold War paranoia at a loss and diminution of his beloved Russia, as was USSR.) Ripper has become convinced that there is a plot by the ‘Commies’ (USA/NATO in Putin’s case) to ‘sap and contaminate our precious bodily fluids’. (In Putin’s case to sap and contaminate the minds of the Russians, and the idea of a Greater Russian Empire.) Ripper decides to take pre-emptive, first-strike unilateral action by striking the USSR. (Putin’s pre-emptive strike on Ukraine, and by extension the West in general.) The B-52s, under Ripper’s command, go in and hydrogen bomb the USSR. (Mercifully, Putin has not yet gone this far.) The US president along with his back-room staff attempt to stop the bombers from delivering their payload. (We can only pray Putin has back-room staff strong enough and prepared to step in if he tries to fulfill his nuclear threat.) Here’s the rub, however, the only way to stop the bombers in Dr Strangelove ,is a recall code which only Ripper knows. (We must pray, even the atheists/agnostics amongst us, that with Putin, it’s not only him that has access to the button.) The US government tries to capture Ripper to get the recall code from him, but Ripper gets away. (Will we be able to stop Putin?) The really scary kicker in Kubrick’s film, however, is that the Soviets have built a doomsday machine that will launch enough missiles to destroy all life on Earth if an American nuclear bomb hits them. (I’m pretty confident Putin’s enemies - us - won’t go this far.) Eventually, Ripper is overpowered, but shoots himself before the recall code can be given. (An inside job on Putin, perhaps, before he can incinerate the planet?) One man ignores the recall code and piles headlong towards Moscow. (A member of Putin’s inner team, perhaps?) He attempts to drop the bomb (On Ukraine? On Europe? On America?) After some door-jamming black humour he opens the doors and rides down on the bomb. 💣 Moscow retaliates with horrifying consequences for the planet. (Surely the West won’t go this far.) Let’s hope that, in this case, life won’t imitate art.👀
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@renatovonschumacher3511 Not sure it’s really to do with that. NATO, for me, is a bit of a red herring here. Putin, I feel, would’ve gone for Ukraine regardless of the NATO influence. As it is, he can use that as a pretext. However, like a spurned lover, he was going to go for Ukraine come what may as a fulfilment of his mad greater Russia project. At this point, at 70, all bets are off as he has nothing to lose and could go down in history (for those of us who are here to read it) as the man who instigated the obliteration of life on this planet as we know it, Jim.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yeah, but our furthest out object, Voyager 1, is ‘only’ currently 14 billion miles away from Earth having been launched in 1977, whereas Proxima Centauri, our nearest star, is 4.22 light years away, or in other words, using current technology, what would take us 6,300 years to reach. This sheer scale of the Universe, for me, makes it nigh-on impossible that we have been visited by extraterrestrial beings or crafts. However, given the 200 billion trillion stars in the known Universe, I don’t for one moment, simply on the balance of statistical probability, doubt that they are ‘out there’; just not ‘in here’. 🛸
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
And while Americans are shooting themselves up every day, it seems, the global 👓 turn to the 🇮🇱-🇵🇸 conflict. Well, the first thing that strikes anyone without skin in the game of this conflict, is how easy it is to solve. The essential point is a simple one. Two peoples of roughly equal size have a claim to the same land. The solution is, obviously, to create two states side by side. However, those who do have a tendentious, non-objective point of view, namely the rabid rabbis and the mad mullahs and the pervervid priests, have served to scupper any chances of solution, obvious to everyone else. But the exclusive claims to god-given authority, made by hysterical clerics on both sides and further stoked by Armageddon-minded wacko Christians who hope to bring on the Apocalypse tout de suite (preceded by the death or conversion of all Jews), have made the situation insufferable, literally and metaphorically, and put the whole of humanity in the position of hostage to a squabble that now features the threat of nuclear conflagration. The moral of this sad, sorry tale, full of sound and fury, is that organised religion has so much to answer for, we may be here until the seas run dry and rocks melt in the hot middle-eastern sun, before it can claim any kind of alibi.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Given that America and her partners have the most egregious record of meddling in the affairs of other sovereign territories, regardless of whether these territories wanted this or not, we cannot be surprised if Putin/Russia moves on a neighbouring country giving strong signals it wants to ally itself with the West and not Russia. Our double standards here are staggering. As far as I can see, Putin is only doing what the West has done for the past 250 years and more. If Putin agreed a deal with Canada and/or Mexico to install weapons on their soil directly targeting America, I doubt very much that America wouldn’t act, and very probably violently, based on its past record. Therefore, why are we surprised when Putin does what most every other place on this planet would’ve done, given what was transpiring in Ukraine and their direction facing West: that is, acting in his own perceived self-interest? It goes without saying that what Putin is doing is wrong, but it’s understandable, even if you are not Putin.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
My main issue is not with Peterson himself (I agree with much of what he says, leaving aside the God nonsense, which he himself almost guiltily, shamefacedly promulgates when asked about), no, my main issue is with the nauseating, sycophantic fanboys (and occasional girl) who leap to even the teeniest, tiniest criticism of him and his ideas like a pack of rabid dogs for hire. It’s hilarious and sick-inducing simultaneously; almost as if they have been hypnotised into believing Peterson cannot possibly be wrong about anything , and anyone who suggests he is, must be shot-down, silenced. Ironically, the very thing they claim ‘woke’ culture does to Peterson himself. All very bizarre.😳
2
-
Yeah, but our furthest out object, Voyager 1, is ‘only’ currently 14 billion miles away from Earth having been launched in 1977, whereas Proxima Centauri, our nearest star, is 4.22 light years away, or in other words, using current technology, what would take us 6,300 years to reach. This sheer scale of the Universe, for me, makes it nigh-on impossible that we have been visited by extraterrestrial beings or crafts. However, given the 200 billion trillion stars in the known Universe, I don’t for one moment, simply on the balance of statistical probability, doubt that they are ‘out there’; just not ‘in here’.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@strider1237 I was exaggerating for comic effect. I kinda was with him, more or less, until yesterday. To say I’ve flipped 180 degrees was an exaggeration. Maybe 20/30 degrees has just gone over to Heard’s side, as it stands. I never thought I’d say this, but Johnny Depp is a right royal fuckwit. However, Heard may be worse. That is yet to be established. But Depp comes across as one of the most self-absorbed, and actually deeply dull, uneducated people I’ve seen recently. He’s massively disappointed the image I had in my head of him. He appears to think that druggies and drunks regaling us with their trips is interesting. It ain’t. It’s the second most boring thing in the world, second only to those numskulls who tell us about their dreams in minute detail. He just seems a massively disappointing human being, that’s all. And for 58, he acts like he’s about 11. Extraordinarily childish. Not attractive, not clever, not interesting. He’s made a couple of decent movies though.
2
-
I think, on balance, the Internet is probably a good thing. For me, its principal boon is the democratisation of opinion. We are able to post and are able read the posts of those who in a pre-Internet age would’ve had no public voice. Of course, the downside of this is that every man and his dog can post about the minutiae of their lives and, realistically, this is going to be of no interest to 99.9% recurring of the population. However, I would argue that just the fact of anyone with access to the Internet having a voice and that being ipso-facto a good thing, regardless of the content they post. It’s down to the consumer to discern and sift the wheat from the chaff as they see it. My main gripe against the Internet, however, has to be the drastic deterioration in our individual/collective attention spans. This inevitably bleeds into ‘real life’ and manifests itself as an intolerant impatience in one’s interlocutor as soon as they feel that urge to be distracted by the next thing/person. Paradoxically, I find that people who are not so in thrall to the Internet in their day to day lives are the people most likely to listen, to truly listen to another, whereas those who seemingly have the most practice at listening to others in the cacophony of Internet chatter are often disastrous at being able to listen and interact in ‘real life’.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I think, on balance, the Internet is probably a good thing. For me, its principal boon is the democratisation of opinion. We are able to post and are able read the posts of those who in a pre-Internet age would’ve had no public voice. Of course, the downside of this is that every man and his dog can post about the minutiae of their lives and, realistically, this is going to be of no interest to 99.9% recurring of the population. However, I would argue that just the fact of anyone with access to the Internet has a voice and that is ipso-facto a good thing, regardless of the content they post. It’s down to the consumer to discern and sift the wheat from the chaff as they see it. My main gripe against the Internet, however, has to be the drastic deterioration in our individual/collective attention spans. This inevitably bleeds into ‘real life’ and manifests itself as an intolerant impatience in one’s interlocutor as soon as they feel that urge to be distracted by the next thing/person. Paradoxically, I find that people who are not so in thrall to the Internet in their day to day lives are the people most likely to listen, to truly listen to another, whereas those who seemingly have the most practice at listening to others in the cacophony of Internet chatter are often disastrous at being able to listen and interact in ‘real life’.
2
-
I think, on balance, the Internet is probably a good thing. For me, its principal boon is the democratisation of opinion. We are able to post and are able read the posts of those who in a pre-Internet age would’ve had no public voice. Of course, the downside of this is that every man and his dog can post about the minutiae of their lives and, realistically, this is going to be of no interest to 99.9% recurring of the population. However, I would argue that just the fact of anyone with access to the Internet has a voice and that is ipso-facto a good thing, regardless of the content they post. It’s down to the consumer to discern and sift the wheat from the chaff as they see it. My main gripe against the Internet, however, has to be the drastic deterioration in our individual/collective attention spans. This inevitably bleeds into ‘real life’ and manifests itself as an intolerant impatience in one’s interlocutor as soon as they feel that urge to be distracted by the next thing/person. Paradoxically, I find that people who are not so in thrall to the Internet in their day to day lives are the people most likely to listen, to truly listen to another, whereas those who seemingly have the most practice at listening to others in the cacophony of Internet chatter are often disastrous at being able to listen and interact in ‘real life’.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@raulelenes4194 Yes, in law, as we speak, Catalonia is part of Spain but in the souls of quite a few Catalonians I have met over the years their loyalty was clearly for Catalonian independence as they are a language & distinct culture in their own right. On this topic I totally understand why the Basques, as well, would be pushing for outright independence on a similar basis to the Catalonians. Me? I think all nationalism is just crazy talk, quite literally it doesn’t make sense to take any kind of pride in an accident of birth; to me it’s like being proud of the colour of my eyes or the fact I have a brother & sister; with these, as with being born somewhere I had absolutely no say in the matter so being ‘proud’ of being Spanish or Catalonian or Basque or anything like that is just meaningless & very very dangerous as witnessed in human history over the past 200, 000 years. Religion & nationalism have so so much blood on their hands that I thank God every day I’m agnostic & am very grateful that I feel absolutely no impulse to harm another human being on the basis of some nebulous, meaningless & actually irrational nationalism. Be proud of your achievements, if that’s your sort of thing, but invisible deities in the sky & accidents of birth? No thanks. No flag waving for me.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@quico522 I recall getting the TGV from Perpignan to Barcelona quite recently and, from memory, it took 1h20. Back in the day (I’m old enough to remember) I did this same trip and think it took about 3h, taking the scenic route and winding its way through Portbou. I just assumed that with increasingly speedy transport connectivity, along with the quite strong cross-cultural Catalan intermixing, that most people within a boundary, say, from just south of Narbonne on the French side, to Barcelona, would be, almost as a matter of course, trilingual in French, Spanish and Catalan. Put it this way, if I were of either Basque or Catalan heritage I would almost feel it my duty to know French, Spanish and Basque/Catalan, if not fluently, then at least to an advanced level.
2
-
2
-
@alexiveperez4687 I accept your rejoinder and the statistics therein.
Reading between the lines, however, and correct me if I’m wrong, I’m sensing that you are quite strongly anti-Catalan national independence, and if so, this will inevitably be colouring your stance, and you’ll be quoting me the statistics to bolster your argument. Could you confirm or deny whether you are for or against Catalan independence?; I’m assuming you’re Spanish and if so, you’re bound to have an opinion on this. I have no Spanish heritage and am coming at this from objective a stance as possible in these terms, that is, I have no real opinion either way as to the desirability of Catalan independence, whereas, most, if not, frankly all, non-Catalan Spaniards I have ever met are quite vehemently (yes, I would use that tendentious a word) anti-Catalan independence.
I know the Spanish constitution, as it stands, forbids any kind of nationalist secession, but this doesn’t necessarily dampen the separatist fires burning in the souls of many a Catalan, and, come to this, many a Basque and, to a lesser extent, a fervent, albeit non-mainstream, Galician cohort. As I said somewhere else, language is power, and, of course, these 3 regions have their own distinct language, much to the chagrin of many a non-Galician, non-Catalan, non-Basque Castilian-speaking Spaniard I have met through the years, and I’ve met a fair few.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@alexiveperez4687 Understood. But … Barcelona and its wider metropolitan area is hardly representative here, as it’s an international city with a strong admixture of internationals and non-Catalan Spaniards. I have traveled fairly extensively in the region over the years (Lleida, Vic, Puigcerda, Tarragona, all over really) and what struck me in all these places was the strength of Catalan feeling for, yes, full independence. Most were speaking the language, and most were not wealthy elites, which, as you suggested, was the part of the Catalan society most in favour of independence. For example, I was in Girona about 5 years ago for a few weeks, and everyone, and I mean everyone, was as the default setting, speaking Catalan (to me, Castilian, as a non-Catalan speaker); young, old, wealthy, not so wealthy. I think this is more representative of what’s going on rather than the slightly anomalous city of Barcelona.
You didn’t really answer my question though. So, again, tomorrow, Catalonia, the Basque region and Galicia all become independent: what would your feelings be about this? You say you’re not political, and I respect this, but you will have feelings either way, I’m sure. Part of the reason I ask is that over the years I have sensed a strong emotion, almost fear, of the aforementioned regions’ secession from the wider Spanish state, in the rest of Spain. Yes, they grumble and mumble in public about those pesky people in the northern regions talking independence, affecting an air of insouciance, but when it comes down to it, if the Spanish state were to split, as we currently know it, these non-separatist wider Spaniards would almost feel it like the loss of a limb. I don’t just mean the wider economic implications of regional secession and independence but I mean an almost metaphysical sundering of their very being and identity; like losing a brother or sister.
2
-
@alexiveperez4687 Ok, this is fascinating. I’m British (Scots-born) and my feeling is, as I said above, a sense of strong civic pride and cultural confidence in Spaniards. Here, I detect the opposite. In Scotland in particular perhaps, but also in the UK in a wider sense I detect a sense of a lack of confidence based on bad climate; poor food; questionable national historical legacy (empire and all that ignominious jazz); poor general education, indeed, in many quarters a kind of actual disdain for the idea of the life of the mind (how many of us, aside from those self-motivated linguists among us, learn other languages?); poor, atomised, family lives; tribal politics; alcohol abuse (and drugs; here in Scotland we have consistently had the highest European drug death rates for aeons); misfiring national sports teams (mainly football), and so on.
For me, when I travel in Spain every person I meet with, more or less, radiates this glowing self-confidence; of course, many will be putting on an act, for whatever reason, but it’s not arrogance; I associate that more with France, a country I’m fond of in many ways. No, as I say, Spain doesn’t radiate weak confidence vibes to me but you and I could just be meeting different types of Spaniards!
2
-
@alexiveperez4687 I find it funny you say that you think Spaniards don’t have a very good opinion of themselves; I am old and have visited your country literally dozens of times and if there’s one thing I didn’t detect, ever really, it was lack of civic (I hesitate to use the word ‘national’) self-confidence. What I perceived, rightly or wrongly, and I’m willing to be corrected, was an extraordinary self-confidence based around the following: language; food; natural beauty of the landscape; climate; appearance (most Spaniards I have met would be mortified, I suspect, if one dared suggest they were anything less than impeccable in personal appearance); beauty and rich culture of Spanish cities; sporting achievements; artistic legacy, in architecture and painting and literature; the list could go on. I find it fascinating that you, a Spaniard, are telling me that actually, despite appearances, Spaniards actually lack self-confidence!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@graphosxp You are completely missing my point. Given that America and her partners have the most egregious record of meddling in the affairs of other sovereign territories, regardless of whether these territories wanted this or not, we cannot be surprised if Putin/Russia moves on a neighbouring country giving strong signals it wants to ally itself with the West and not Russia. Our double standards here are staggering. As far as I can see, Putin is only doing what the West has done for the past 250 years and more. If Putin agreed a deal with Canada and/or Mexico to install weapons on their soil directly targeting America, I doubt very much that America wouldn’t act, and very probably violently, based on its past record. Therefore, why are we surprised when Putin does what most every other place on this planet would’ve done, given what was transpiring in Ukraine and their direction facing West: that is, acting in his own perceived self-interest? It goes without saying that what Putin is doing is wrong, but it’s understandable, even if you are not Putin.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Richard_L_Y Russia is an aggressor for sure here, it’s hardly been unprovoked, and this is really a Civil War (particularly from Putin’s point of view). NATO reneging on its agreement not to expand post 1989 has provoked Putin. Casual flouting of 2014 Minsk agreements not to aggress against pro-Russian Ukrainians in the east, leading to the loss of about 14,000 has provoked Putin. The 2014 coup having much evidence (surprise! surprise!) of the paw prints of the CIA\USA has provoked Putin. Zelensky has publicly expressed a desire to acquire nuclear weapons, understandably spooking Moscow and thereby provoking Putin. There’s also the stench of corrupt family Biden deals with Ukraine, as well, which might explain sleepy Joe’s reluctance to get directly involved here. For now. Add to this Putin’s statement that the dissolution of the Soviet Empire was the ‘most tragic geopolitical event of the 20th century’, along with his belief in the greater mother Russia project and bringing the recalcitrant (as he sees them) Ukrainians back into the Slavic familial bosom and you have a perfect storm in which Putin feels justified in rolling his tanks into another sovereign, self-governing territory. He’s deluded in doing this, of course, as most Ukrainians want nothing to do with him, and rightly so. None of the above makes what Putin is doing right, but it makes it a little more understandable from Putin/Russia’s point of view.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@adrianthoroughgood1191 My caveat stems from human agendas; we are very good, as a species, at creating agendas to suit our ends, but in this case, as about 95% of climate scientists are in agreement that this 1 Celsius rise is principally attributable to human activity, I can go with this. Actually, even anecdotally it’s quite easy to see that this planet is warming, without actual statistics to prove this. For example, I live on the 55th parallel, and as a youngster we had guaranteed weeks of snow every winter; in the past 25 years or so, I can count on the fingers of one hand just how many ‘proper’ snowy winters we’ve had. So, anecdotal evidence in this case is quite powerful.
2
-
2
-
@davidwatson2399 Yeah, but if you look into this a little more, it can make you think. There are many vested interests whose funding relies on the thesis of manmade global warming. Now, as I say, the scientific consensus seems to say that manmade warming is significant here but The United States government has spent enormous sums on global warming/climate change issues, including science research, although the ocean of funding is so large, fed by so many rivers of tax dollars, that it's hard to tally it all up. Now, if my funding relied on the theory that current global warming is primarily human driven, I might be inclined to promulgate that very theory. Just sayin’.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rutgerb Essentially Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, North Macedonia all decided to join NATO’s gang and not Putin’s/Russia’s gang. Now, I’m 100% for the right for to self-determine and decide to join NATO; all I’m saying is, if I were Putin, ex-KGB, a Cold War relic, then I would feel this like a betrayal, that’s all. However, I would like to think I wouldn’t be as nakedly evil as Putin appears to be and invade a neighbouring sovereign, self-governing territory. As far as I can see, a big part of why he has done this is because Ukraine has been strongly flirting with the West for about 3 decades.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I find it hilarious how polarised this debate always is, as if ‘nuance’ were a dirty word. Anyone looking at it dispassionately, can see that there are pros and cons on both sides. Personally, I’m right on the fence, but the thing that ultimately will probably sway me is quite simply the democratic one: currently, and for quite some time in Scotland, we don’t get the Westminster government we vote for, and by quite a long way. Anyone with a scintilla of respect and sensitivity to the idea of a fair democracy surely sees this. My main reservation about an independent Scotland is, predictably, the economic one. Unsure whether we could thrive and prosper long-term independently. Ultimately, however, the ‘democratic deficit’ question is watertight. As an onlooker in the debate, I get exasperated with those far, far too passionate (no matter which side of the issue they stand), as those sorts always seem to be protesting too much, thereby betraying their own radical feelings of doubt, for as Robert M Pirsig said, in one of my favourite all-time quotes: “You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.” Amen.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Thomas Louis Whatever he is, it’s all power-tripping poppycock unworthy of thinking human beings. These unverified, unverifiable beliefs are fine on an individual basis, if that’s your thing; no, the danger enters when humans band together. This would not matter if organised religion, any organised religion, were not a clear and present danger to all those who are party to its orbit. Nietzsche saw all this clearly: Madness is something rare in individuals — but in groups, parties, peoples, and ages, it is the rule. Ordinarily sane, reasonable individuals all too easily become ‘drunk’ and crazed with religion as they see others believing in the same stuff and this emboldens them. I say all this as a non-atheist.
2
-
2
-
Speaking as a Catholic (very lapsed), it’s my observation, based on years of experience, that many, if not most, of those who enter the priesthood, Catholic or otherwise, do it principally for one of two reasons: 1. authority; it provides them with a little ‘parish power’ they may otherwise feel they are lacking. 2. They lazily fall into it as they are invariably unqualified for doing much else. I suspect Calvin falls more into the former category. There is something about him I distinctly don’t trust, and I’d trust it even less if he were to wield any real power, religious or otherwise. Christianity, but particularly Catholicism is a wounded, defanged (at least in this part of the world) beast, but make no mistake about it, if we ever got too lax and let it rise again to dominate in the public sphere, it would a benighted return to the Dark Ages for us all. I count my blessings every day that, for all Britain’s faults, I don’t live in any kind of theocracy, Christian or otherwise.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This was highly entertaining, but as ever with these things, we have the extremes of the debate, which is anathema to those of us who like to be a bit more balanced.
Whenever the topic of climate change/global warming comes up, as someone neither particularly right nor particularly left politically, I despair at how tribalised and polarised this debate becomes with each camp ensconced in their respective corners, equally convinced that their case is watertight. As ever with these things (and the reason I’m a centrist in almost everything), the truth lies somewhere in the middle. One of the most reasoned and balanced paragraphs I have ever read about this topic is the following from Stephen Pinker:
If the emission of greenhouse gases continues, the Earth’s average temperature will rise to at least 1.5°C above the preindustrial level by the end of the 21st century, and perhaps to 4°C above that level or more. That will cause more frequent and more severe heat waves, more floods in wet regions, more droughts in dry regions, heavier storms, more severe hurricanes, lower crop yields in warm regions, the extinction of more species, the loss of coral reefs (because the oceans will be both warmer and more acidic), and an average rise in sea level of between 0.7 metres and 1.2 metres from both the melting of land ice and the expansion of seawater. (Sea level has already risen almost eight inches since 1870, and the rate of the rise appears to be accelerating.) Low-lying areas would be flooded, island nations would disappear beneath the waves, large stretches of farmland would no longer be arable, and millions of people would be displaced. The effects could get still worse in the 22nd century and beyond, and in theory could trigger upheavals such as a diversion of the Gulf Stream (which would turn Europe into Siberia) or a collapse of the Antarctic ice sheets. A rise of 2°C is considered the most that the world could reasonably adapt to, and a rise of 4°C, in the words of a 2012 World Bank report, “simply must not be allowed to occur.”
The planet is warming. Fact. Humans (according to the overwhelming scientific consensus) are the principal cause of this warming over the past couple of centuries through fossil fuel burning. Now, given this, and given the consequences eloquently outlined by Pinker, we have to collectively decide whether we want to continue on this trajectory or not. For me, given the data, and given the projected consequences contingent upon that data, it makes utter sense to phase out fossil fuels. With this caveat: we must do it sensibly. They will be needed for some time to come as the transition to renewables is made. Who knows? Given that we are currently in an interglacial period, 500 years down the line when we have stopped using fossil fuels, the planet might start a rapid cooling trend leading to that ever-promised next Ice Age, and there might be a desperate clamour to start burning fossil fuels as quickly as possible!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@petersmith2522 The English haven’t been trying to make Scotland ‘English’ for centuries. Those days are over for good, I think. The Catalonia/Spain thing I see as more akin to a Scotland/UK thing. Most Scots also see themselves as UK citizens, and also Brits. Most Catalonians I know also see themselves as Spanish. Ditto Galicians; ditto Basques. Of course, these identities subtly vary from person to person but these general trends I outline obtain. As for Pep, well I’m willing to bet when Spain won the World Cup he wasn’t disowning that victory by claiming he wasn’t Spanish; but I’m aware his primary identity, in nationalistic terms, appears to be Catalonian. For me, all this stuff is meaningless as accidents of birth, and taking pride in these is stupid. I’m with George Carlin on this: Pride should be reserved for something you achieve or obtain on your own, not something that happens by accident of birth. Being Irish isn't a skill... it's a fucking genetic accident. You wouldn't say I'm proud to be 5'11"; I'm proud to have a pre-disposition for colon cancer. So, I was born in Scotland but in no way feel more ‘Scottish’ than I do feel any other nationality you claim to mention, as I see being ‘proud’ of an accident of birth as below thinking human beings, and very, very dangerous, as history has shown, and continues to show.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You seem to be, wilfully or otherwise, missing the point of Carr’s joke. Carr, in my opinion, has no antipathy towards Gypsies. So what is going on here? He’s holding up a mirror to you, the listener, and asking you: are you one of the racist ones? He’s questioning the hierarchy we all (probably) hold in our minds concerning other races, and is simply suggesting that we may have rather ugly, unexamined opinions about Gypsies, such that they fall down the sympathy pecking order in a WW2 context. Carr may have not fully thought this through, as I see him as a bit of a trigger-happy ‘say anything to elicit a reaction’ comedian, but when you look behind the bald, blunt headlines and read between the lines, this is not meant as an attack on Gypsies; it was meant as an attack on your unexamined assumptions about Gypsies, and by extension, other historically persecuted groups.🥸
2
-
2
-
2
-
If you want evidence that organised religion was made by men, for men, ask yourself why virtually no mosque on this planet has a female imam; why no woman has ever been Pope; not one Chief Rabbi in Israel has been a woman; not one Hindu temple has had a female priest; finally, out of 14 incarnations, not one Dalai Lama has been a woman. That last one is especially curious as, by the law of averages, there should have been about 7 to this point. Yes, indeed, organised religion, organised by men and controlled by men, so that they can control others.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@AcerbicDelicacy I would point out that Islam is one of the 3 religions of the ‘Good Book’ and reveres Jesus as one of its prophets. Here’s the thing: In this whole wider immigration debate, there’s a subtle difference between ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘multiethnicism’. I have a problem with the former if it means each separate cultural group living their own lives parallel and separate from the broad main national culture, which I really only see in a cohort of Muslims. However, I have zero issue with multiethnicism. The colour of your skin bothers me not a jot; it’s only your ideas I care about, and the ideas tend to come into play with ‘multiculturalism’ and separate cultures living side by side. I tend to see only a lack of integration in a cohort of Muslims. I don’t see it in Chinese/Indians/Poles/ etc. Another thing I would say is that I have lived for long stretches in several places around the world and in every single one of these places only 3 things was asked of me: speak the language, pay taxes and don’t break the law. Now, obviously, I wasn’t living in these places permanently, but tbh, that’s all I really ask of those who come here. Most do these things and as they produce generations, these generations tend to meld with the whole. It’s only a rump of Muslims who want none of this. So, as for Yousaf, he was born and bred in Scotland, as was I, and that makes him just as ‘Scottish’ as I am as far as I’m concerned.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mindcraft4362 What I find interesting in this whole debate, as a neutral onlooker from the sidelines (neither “trans” - whatever that means - nor biologically female) is that the trans community, like you here, are always banging on about your “rights” and “freedoms”, when surely the key thing in this whole debate is the preference and rights of biological females as it's they who are potentially having their private spaces occupied. My guess (but it’s a guess based on extensive experience) would be that the vast majority of women (ie with cervix) wouldn’t want biological men in their private spaces, regardless of whether these men self-identify as “women”, and even if they have fully transitioned through physical/chemical castration. Put it this way: if I were a young mum taking her pre-teen child to the public swimming pool, would I want biological men (regardless of their trans status) sharing the changing rooms with me? Answer: no. This does not mean I’m “anti-trans”; it means I am pro-protecting safe spaces for biological women. I don’t care how you self-identify, just as long as your chosen identity doesn’t adversely affect my life. The analogy would be with organised religion: I’m agnostic; believe in and worship what you want, but when this unfavourably impinges on my life, that’s when my hackles are raised. Religion should be a private matter and not pervade the public sphere and potentially adversely affect the lives of others. With trans people, they can do what they want within the law, express themselves how they want, call themselves what they want (and I will honour this), but if the majority of biological females don’t want them actually physically invading their private spaces (which seems to be the case), then this majority wish should be honoured in practice.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Why are we still boring on about this? This is utterly ridiculous and agenda-based. The sanctimoniousness is staggering. Willoughby and Schofield were on a working assignment. They got the chance to see the coffin. They took it. They weren’t holding anyone up. Secretly, I bet most of us would, no matter what folk are saying here. If I were there on a working assignment, I repeat, a working assignment, and I could breeze past the coffin in 2 minutes as an addendum to this, instead of waiting 20 hours in a queue, I would, and I suspect most people would in these circumstances. Beckham and his ilk are exceptions, I suspect. The other thing is that Beckham wasn’t on a specific work assignment. For me, that latter fact allows you a fast track to the coffin, and if it had been offered to me I would have taken it and admitted it afterwards if a ruckus were created. I suspect the real issue here is Schofield and Willoughby being disingenuous about what they really did. The other, perhaps bigger issue, is people just want something on the pair as they don’t like Schofield. If this had just been Holly, there’d be far, far less of a ruckus here, if anything at all. The usual agenda that you always get with GB News folk, when they don’t like someone. They skipped the queue. They were working there. So what? No big deal. Get over it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@wundurra24 I was curious. Wasn’t sure myself. It looks like Jesus wasn’t a refugee as we understand that term today. Merriam-Webster defines refugee as “a person who flees to a foreign country or power to escape danger or persecution.” Refugees are typically forced to leave their country because of some impending violence directed toward them. Under that broad definition, it may seem that Jesus and His parents might have qualified for a time as refugees. However, there is a difference between the dictionary definition of refugee and its use as a political term today. In the New Testament, Matthew records the following: “An angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. ‘Get up,’ he said, ‘take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.’ So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: ‘Out of Egypt I called my son’” (Matthew 2:13–15). Jesus was not a “refugee” in any sense meaningful to today’s world. For one thing, Jesus’ family never left the Roman Empire; they simply fled from one region of Roman territory to another Roman territory. That would be like someone moving legally from one state to another within the USA to leave the jurisdiction of the governor of the first state. Also, Luke makes it clear that Joseph and Mary went out of their way to follow Roman law in adhering to the census (Luke 2:1–5). Everything they did was legal. Jesus and His family moved to Egypt in order to escape King Herod’s murderous intentions, but they had a plan, and they had supplies and support. Their trip was entirely self-funded, due to the gifts of the magi. And their sojourn in Egypt was short. The family remained there until the death of Herod, at which time they returned home (Matthew 2:19–21). Given these details, there’s no real parallel to the modern, indigent refugee who asks permission to enter a new country to avoid some calamity. There is some truth to the idea that Jesus was a persecuted and poor man, and so we need to consider how we treat those who are displaced and impoverished. However, in the interest of accuracy, Jesus was not what one would consider a “refugee,” either then or now.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dmytrogalan1005 It’s quite simple, mate. It’s called ‘self-determination’. If a majority vote for something, anything , then you honour this vote. It’s called ‘democracy’. I don’t give a shit about the history blah, blah, blah. If today, a majority vote says Ukraine should be an independent sovereign state (and it does), then not Putin, nor anyone else has a leg to stand on. The only reason he is doing this is because power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and because he can.😳
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Personally, I find this pretty repulsive, too, but 2 things to point out. Life expectancy in the 7th century was about 30. Moreover, even today in some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Libya, Iran, Pakistan, and Qatar, there is no age of consent but people must be married. The tradition Mohammed followed in Saudi in the 7th century doesn’t appear to be all that different from today.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@AMpufnstuf The idea that an 18-year-old could walk into a store and buy weapons of war designed and marketed to kill, no questions asked, it seems to me, just violates common sense. If people want to legally own guns, then strict vetting, mental health checks, the type of gun owned, should all be strictly monitored. You know something, I have lived in 6 countries, including a year spent in America; I have never felt more ‘edgy’ and nervous for my personal safety anywhere, more than I did in the US. Restricting access to legal firearms obviously won’t solve everything overnight, and contrary to your jibe, I’m no utopian, but that this guy in Texas can buy a gun as easily as he can buy a candy bar, it seems, with few, if any, questions asked, seems to me, plain insanity.
2
-
@AMpufnstuf France, Belgium, all of Scandinavia, UK, Ireland, Australia, China, Greece, Syria, Taiwan, Portugal, New Zealand, Spain, Netherlands, Croatia, Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Morocco, Israel, Canada, to name a few, all consistently have a homicide rate at 4x lower than that of America. Most, if not all of these countries, have stricter gun laws than the US. Coincidence?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mikeatcora It’s just a scientific fact that the planet has warmed by just over a degree these past 250 years, pal. I’m old. As a kid, we had bitter winters with lying snow almost every year. In the last 30 years, I can count on the fingers of one hand the winters we have had where snow fell and lied for weeks on end. I live on the 55th parallel North. So, even anecdotally folks can see this 🌍 is warming. They don’t actually need the stats to verify this. The issue here is the complicity, or otherwise, of humans in all this. On balance, having looked at the evidence, I happen to think that humans are significantly contributing to global warming through fossil fuel burning. Given this, it makes utter sense to phase out fossil fuels. With this caveat: we must do it sensibly. They will be needed for some time to come as the transition to renewables is made. Who knows? Given that we are currently in an inter-glacial period, 500 years down the line when we have stopped using fossil fuels, the planet might start a rapid cooling trend leading to that ever-promised next Ice Age, and there might be a desperate clamour to start burning fossil fuels as quickly as possible!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
So, why do no other comparable nations have this homicide issue to the same extent? I would say that why they don’t, is because they limit access to legal guns. This 18 year-old freak would, arguably, not have done this if he were not able to walk into a gun store and buy one, no questions asked, no vetting, nothing. If you make guns so free and easy, you are going to get people being free and easy with guns. Other nations recognise this, and legislate for this. America doesn’t. Why? The archaic, primitive 2nd Amendment. No other nation on Earth allows its citizens this kind of legal access to deadly weapons. They don’t allow this for a very good reason.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ayoolukoga9829 Richard Dawkins summed up the horrendous monster that is the Old Testament God better than anyone I have ever read on the subject: The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. You want me to believe in that God? No thanks.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ah, that old desperate tune, ‘nationalism’, causing all the trouble again. When will we, as a species, get beyond random, arbitrary accidents of birth as key markers of our identity? Along with organised religion, nationalism is the greatest self-destructive, baleful blight we ever had the misfortune to invent as a species. Other civilisations from galaxies far, far away look at us and weep for us. We are primitive children in the kindergarten of the Universe. One day, we shall graduate to adulthood, and a certain maturity and look back in time at how silly we were. As it is, we have murder, mayhem, internecine destruction all on an accident of birth or an imagined daddy in the sky. Really?
2
-
2
-
2
-
@harry hale What? She’s a journalist. ‘So you’re saying that’, to me is simply a stock phrase a curious journalist would use to probe their subject. My main issue here is not Peterson himself, it’s the online bullies who pile in to trash and traduce the (very often) female journalist in a staggeringly misogynistic manner. Too many Peterson fanboys, take any criticism of his ideas as a free pass to weigh in, in the most ugly manner. If you don’t believe me, take a cursory look here and at other interviews (Helen Lewis) and you will see what I mean. Peterson quite simply doesn’t have an original thought in his head. His 12 rules stuff is cookie-cutter level embarrassing in its jejune thinking. It’s the type of stuff I could scribble on the back of a cigarette packet in a toilet break. He states everything oh so portentously as if he’s the first person to ever think of, say, ‘equality of opportunity’ or, say, ‘let’s try to keep ideology out of debates’, both ideas I happen to agree with, incidentally. He attracts a type of fan(boy) as vicious and bullying and nasty as I have ever encountered on the Internet.😳
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
My main issue is not with Peterson himself (I agree with much of what he says, leaving aside the God nonsense, which he himself almost guiltily, shamefacedly promulgates when asked about), no, my main issue is with the nauseating, sycophantic fanboys (and occasional girl) who leap to even the teeniest, tiniest criticism of him and his ideas like a pack of rabid dogs for hire. It’s hilarious and sick-inducing simultaneously; almost as if they have been hypnotised into believing Peterson cannot possibly be wrong about anything , and anyone who suggests he is, must be shot-down, silenced. Ironically, the very thing they claim ‘woke’ culture does to Peterson himself. All very bizarre.😳
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@UCIM11fNcUvvGLnxcBy3Dy8w Didn’t realise you were Muslim. Cool. Lol@atheist gangs😂Pretty sure these gangs who are atheist are not fighting in the name of atheism! A little ridiculous to suggest this methinks. Look, I, an agnostic, have no issue with the concept and practice of freedom of worship, and am pro-controlled immigration, but I do think Britain has a serious issue with ghettoisation, as certain communities don’t mix with other communities, and this non-mixing is done on an ideological/cultural/religious basis. I don’t not mix with anyone based on colour, creed, sexuality, gender or anything really. I will judge you, as Luther King said, on the content of your character; my issue is these self-identified cultures we have imported who are not able to do the same it seems. No, they see a label and act accordingly. They don’t see the person. And so, we see this playing out in Leicester. I fear this will only get worse if we don’t address it. Interesting you’re a Muslim. Didn’t realise. In my experience of non-indigenous cultures Britain has imported, the vast, vast majority seem integrated and getting on with their lives. Like you. Like millions of others. However, I need to say that I have detected over the years a minority of your religion unable and/or unwilling to make the requisite effort to integrate as fully as 99% of others (as you say) do.
2
-
@Ashleii I agree they are not debating the finer points of scripture. But they are arguing the toss coming from 2 specific religious traditions, which appear totally incompatible, and this is carried forward and manifested in each ‘side’ seeing each other as the ‘enemy’, something which wouldn’t happen if they didn’t self-identify as ‘Hindu’ and ‘Muslim’. Proof? I’ve read several comments in various threads from ex-Muslims commenting on how ashamed and embarrassed they are for their former faith, and what these idiots are doing in its name. In other words, if this isn’t a fundamentally Hindu/Muslim clash (it is, of course), then I’m not sure what it is. Yes, frustrated young men. But we’re not getting gangs of frustrated agnostics, or Jews, or Buddhists, or practising Christians causing ‘gang’ trouble, as you call it, under these rubrics. No, it’s ‘Hindus’ and ‘Muslims’ specifically we are dealing with here, men who self-identify as Hindu and Muslim and this nonsense is, in a very real way, underpinned by organised religion.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@trr4488 No. What I’m saying is that Putin sees Ukraine as blood-brothers. He’s hurt that they, mainly, are looking West and not North. He’s gone in there for 2 main reasons as I see it: 1. The historical/cultural one of bring back Ukraine into the embrace of mother Russia. 2. He’s simply protecting his borders. If Ukraine joins NATO, and it seems to want to, on a majority, then clearly having a Ukraine in NATO affects his defensive situation. I will repeat this: if Mexico agreed a pact with Russia, allowing the latter to install missiles on the US/Mexico border, directly targeting Washington DC, do you honestly think America would just sit back and let that happen? No, of course they wouldn’t. They’d initially ask for the missiles to be removed, and if that didn’t happen, they’d invade a sovereign, self-governing territory in order to remove these weapons themselves. My main point here being, that the double standards of the West are staggering. America, and her partners have invaded and/or overturned more democratically-elected governments that Putin can only dream of. Just think about this a little before blundering in on a ‘let’s trash the evil Vlad the Mad’ mission.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@emm_arr Just in case you were blowing your second cousin twice removed first time round, I will repeat what I said at the beginning of this thread (word to the wise: take that engorged, veiny monstrosity out of your mouth and look up. 👀) Given that America and her partners have the most egregious record of meddling in the affairs of other sovereign territories, regardless of whether these territories wanted this or not, we cannot be surprised if Putin/Russia moves on a neighbouring country giving strong signals it wants to ally itself with the West and not Russia. Our double standards here are staggering. As far as I can see, Putin is only doing what the West has done for the past 250 years and more. If Putin agreed a deal with Canada and/or Mexico to install weapons on their soil directly targeting America, I doubt very much that America wouldn’t act, and very probably violently, based on its past record. Therefore, why are we surprised when Putin does what most every other place on this planet would’ve done, given what was transpiring in Ukraine and their direction facing West: that is, acting in his own perceived self-interest? It goes without saying that what Putin is doing is wrong, but it’s understandable, even if you are not Putin.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Given that America and her partners have the most egregious record of meddling in the affairs of other sovereign territories, regardless of whether these territories wanted this or not, we cannot be surprised if Putin/Russia moves on a neighbouring country giving strong signals it wants to ally itself with the West and not Russia. Our double standards here are staggering. As far as I can see, Putin is only doing what the West has done for the past 250 years and more. If Putin agreed a deal with Canada and/or Mexico to install weapons on their soil directly targeting America, I doubt very much that America wouldn’t act, and very probably violently, based on its past record. Therefore, why are we surprised when Putin does what most every other place on this planet would’ve done, given what was transpiring in Ukraine and their direction facing West: that is, acting in his own perceived self-interest? It goes without saying that what Putin is doing is wrong, but it’s understandable, even if you are not Putin.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@默-c1r Anywhere. Say what you want. Anywhere. In public. In private. Sure, there may be consequences contingent on living in a society (as with Clarkson and the Sun here), but my basic rule is that I allow anyone to say anything, anywhere. For the last time: I understand others have different views and draw the line elsewhere. I also understand that I have to toe-the-line myself and not slander/libel others if I don’t want to face the consequences, but unless I become a hermit, I shall just have to live with this. However, none of this alters my own basic, personal position: I allow anyone to say anything. Now, can we just end this now, as it’s becoming mighty tedious? K, ty.👍
2
-
@默-c1r Where did I say newspapers were ‘compelled’ to publish his articles? Yeah, that’s right; I didn’t. My point is quite simple: I, personally, would uphold the right of anyone to say absolutely anything . My personal line is drawn where you lift a finger and touch me. ‘Sticks and stones may break my bones etc.’ I repeat: I accept others have different lines drawn in different places. To me, Clarkson’s words were crude, crass, childish, worryingly obsessive on his part, but all this notwithstanding, I wouldn’t have prevented him from saying them. I understand that commercial operations like the Sun newspaper are going to have different views on this as they have different considerations to me, a private citizen.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@loudorchen183 Yeah. That’s me. I’d rather follow other ‘teachers’ than the barbaric monster that is the God of the Old Testament. Dawkins nailed him when he wrote: The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. You’re asking me to use this creep as a ‘teacher’?! Get real. I have enough brains to see that this is man made claptrap to instil fear into illiterate unthinking morons.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Jordan Peterson’s 12 rules for life - an appraisal.
Stand up straight with your shoulders straight. Unless you’re a peeping Tom and need to keep below that wall, otherwise that gorgeous, undressing next-door neighbour may spot you.
Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping. In other words, pick up your own smelly socks, don’t litter, and make your own fucking bed!
Befriend people who want the best for you. Well, this rests on your judgement of others’ character. If that’s shit, you’re fucked.
Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not the useless person you are today. This one totally contradicts the whole idea of self-improvement, for if I’m more useless today than I was yesterday, why am I even trying to self-improve?!
Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them. Well, this assumes that you’re such an insane parental control freak with such a fascistic sense of keeping another in order that it’s not even worth considering, if only to save your own soul. Besides, kids need to make their own mistakes, so tough-titty if the parents can’t take this.
Set your house in order before criticising the world. Well, if you’re a saint, perhaps. If you’re a messy flesh and blood human being then criticising the world is what gets most of us through the day, if the drugs aren’t working.
Pursue what is meaningful, not what is expedient. Yeah, but that makes the enormous, unfounded assumption that any of this means anything whatsoever.
Tell the truth, or at least don’t lie. I’m sorry, but that time my mother caught my porn stash under the bed, I had to lie and pin it on my twin brother, Tommy. Sometimes, lying just is the best policy and those who say otherwise are just liars.
Assume the person you are listening to knows something you don’t. Ok. But this one falls down when it comes to my bank PIN number.
Be precise in your speech. What ‘precise’ in one’s speech like Mr Jordan ‘why use 1 word when 21 will do?’ Peterson? Give me the conciseness of a Sam Harris any day. I’m sure Adam Sandler will concur.
Do not bother children while they are skateboarding. Unless, that is, they are skateboarding all over your prize flowerbeds; then you can not only ‘bother’ them, but collar them and let them feel your hot garlicky breath on their cheeks.
Pet a cat when you encounter one in the street. Unless, that is, the cat is frothing alarmingly at the mouth.
Now where’s my publishing deal?😳
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Jordan Peterson’s 12 rules for life - an appraisal.
Stand up straight with your shoulders straight. Unless you’re a peeping Tom and need to keep below that wall, otherwise that gorgeous, undressing next-door neighbour may spot you.
Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping. In other words, pick up your own smelly socks, don’t litter, and make your own fucking bed!
Befriend people who want the best for you. Well, this rests on your judgement of others’ character. If that’s shit, you’re fucked.
Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not the useless person you are today. This one totally contradicts the whole idea of self-improvement, for if I’m more useless today than I was yesterday, why am I even trying to self-improve?!
Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them. Well, this assumes that you’re such an insane parental control freak with such a fascistic sense of keeping another in order that it’s not even worth considering, if only to save your own soul. Besides, kids need to make their own mistakes, so tough-titty if the parents can’t take this.
Set your house in order before criticising the world. Well, if you’re a saint, perhaps. If you’re a messy flesh and blood human being then criticising the world is what gets most of us through the day, if the drugs aren’t working.
Pursue what is meaningful, not what is expedient. Yeah, but that makes the enormous, unfounded assumption that any of this means anything whatsoever.
Tell the truth, or at least don’t lie. I’m sorry, but that time my mother caught my porn stash under the bed, I had to lie and pin it on my twin brother, Tommy. Sometimes, lying just is the best policy and those who say otherwise are just liars.
Assume the person you are listening to knows something you don’t. Ok. But this one falls down when it comes to my bank PIN number.
Be precise in your speech. What ‘precise’ in one’s speech like Mr Jordan ‘why use 1 word when 21 will do?’ Peterson? Give me the conciseness of a Sam Harris any day. I’m sure Adam Sandler will concur.
Do not bother children while they are skateboarding. Unless, that is, they are skateboarding all over your prize flowerbeds; then you can not only ‘bother’ them, but collar them and let them feel your hot garlicky breath on their cheeks.
Pet a cat when you encounter one in the street. Unless, that is, the cat is frothing alarmingly at the mouth.
Now where’s my publishing deal?😳
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rustycherkas8229 Nice one. 👍 However, bit surprised you’re quoting a line about ‘being misunderstood’ in the context of an Emerson discussion. 😲For, as you may recall he had a rather pithy, witty take on this subject: Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood. Ok, I shall now take Emerson’s advice and quote at second/third hand no more. For now.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What’s been more than a little perplexing to the neutral onlooker in all this is Israel’s completely disproportionate response and, frankly, bludgeoning of a whole people in its quest to get at those who hit them on October 7th. If my nasty next-door neighbour attacked my family whilst I wasn’t looking, I certainly wouldn’t take out his innocent wife and children to get back at him, even if he were hiding behind them. This has more than the stench of Netanyahu using October 7th to massacre as many ordinary Palestinians as he can get away with. In an alternative universe, if the boot were on the other foot, and Israeli militants attacked Palestinians on October 7th, and this was followed by the massacre of 50,000+ ordinary Israelis (proportionate to the Palestinian population) to get at the Israeli militants, there would rightly be a world outcry. There’s more than a whiff here that the Palestinians are, somehow, dispensable. One Palestinian life doesn’t appear to be worth one Israeli life in this scenario.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nixxxon18 Ok, I went to the very site you told me to and I did the calculations. The following is a direct quote from the site, and underneath is my working:
*Number of stones per stone layer:
Oskar M. Riedl [6] calculated the number of stones per stone layer if you take an average stone of 127 x 127 x 69cm (median height of 0.69m and median weight). He calculated in the first layer 32'000 stones (not including that there are less stones because of the rock outcropping), with 25'000 stone blocks in the 26th course, 20'000 stone blocks in the 46th course, 15'000 stone blocks in the 68th course, 10'000 stone blocks in the 95th course, 5'000 stone blocks in the 128th course, 1'000 stone blocks in the 174th course and 500 stone blocks in the 184th course.*
So, 32,000 in first layer. 25,000 stones in 26th layer. So, between the first and 26th let’s say there’s an average of 28,000. So that’s 28,000 x 24 = 672,000 + 32,000 + 25,000 = 729,000
In 46th layer there are 20,000. Between the 26th layer and 46th layer let’s say an average of 22,000. So that’s 729,000. Add 18 x 22,000 = 396,000 + 20,000 + 25,000 = 441,000
So, we now can add 441,000 + 729,000 = 1,170,000
In the 68th layer we have 15,000. Between the 46th layer and 68th layer let’s say an average of 17,000. So that’s 17,000 x 20 = 340,000 + 20,000 + 15,000 = 375,000
So, 1,170,000 + 375,000 = 1,545,000
In the 95th layer we have 10,000. Between the 68th layer and 95th layer let’s say an average of 12,000. So that’s 12,000 x 25 = 300,000 + 15,000 + 10,000 = 325,000
So, 1,545,000 + 325,000 = 1,870,000
In the 128th layer we have 5,000. Between the 95th layer and 128th layer let’s say an average of 7,000. So that’s 7,000 x 31 = 217,000 + 10,000 + 5,000 = 232,000
So, 1,870,000 + 242,000 = 2,112,000
In the 174th layer we have 1,000. Between the 128th layer and the 174th layer let’s say an average of 3,000. So that’s 3,000 x 44 = 132,000 + 5,000 + 1,000 = 138,000
So, 2,112,000 + 138,000 = 2,250,000
In the 184th layer we have 500. Between the 174th layer and the 184th layer let’s say an average of 750. So that’s 750 x 8 = 6,000 + 1,000 + 500 = 7,500
So, 2,250,000 + 7,500 = 2,257,500
So, what did we say? 2.3 million? What did I calculate using the very site you directed me to? 2,257,500? Well, what’s 42,500 stones between friends! Looks like 2.3 million is pretty spot on mate. Nice try though. 👍
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Napoleon1123 Seems to me the Netherlands has a system which better reflects the actual choices and concerns of the populace. Wilders’ 2023 win shows this. A huge part of many western Europeans’ concerns at present centres on out of control immigration, and particularly Islamic immigration. Wilders’ winning reflected that. Aside from the obvious (education, the economy, health), immigration (and specifically Islamic immigration) is the greatest concern of everyone I know. As someone who is generally pro legal, strictly controlled, targeted immigration, it’s a constant mystery to me why so many secular western liberal democracies allow such an influx of those with values diametrically opposed to western, secular liberal democracy. It’s a sure-fire recipe for future disaster. Unless, of course, it’s all planned… 🤔
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The greatest problem humanity faces, and has always faced, is one of perspective. We have narrowed our vision such that are unable to see the universal wood for the exclusive trees. We have hitched our star to this or that family, clan, tribe, nationalism, religion, such that have become deluded, unable to serenely see what actually is. We are cosmic dust on a grain of sand, one of trillions of grains of sand, whirling around a nuclear reactor, one of trillions of nuclear reactors, and we are willing to abase ourselves to murdering one another for an accident of birth, or an imagined daddy in the sky? Has it come to this? There are alien civilisations who use this Earth as a cosmic pit stop on their intergalactic travels and they look at us and weep. They have perspective. They can literally see the Earth in toto. They cannot see the pettifogging, sanguinary squabbles over this or that imaginary line drawn on a map. They cannot see the ignorant ranters championing their imagined God, ranked against the ignorant ranters championing their imaginary God. The solution to all this nonsense is very simple. Expand your terms of self-definition. Refuse to accept a random, arbitrary accident of birth as a salient marker of your identity. Refuse to accept unthought-out shibboleths handed down to you to shore up your fear of death. Refuse to be proud, unless your pride is grounded in self-motivated, self-guided achievement, and not some random, bizarre, nonsensical ‘pride’ based on the fact your mother happened to plop you out here, and not there. None of this would matter a fig, but for a key point: we now, at this critical juncture in our cosmic journey, face the very real and present danger of incinerating this planet and everything on it. Really. We are better than that.😳
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lemdixon01 From an incredibly selfish point of view, global warming only matters because of humans. Yes, other species will be affected, but it’s because we are on this planet it ultimately matters. If you don’t really care about humans carrying on, global warming may actually be a good thing! As George Carlin wisely put it: We’re so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet.
Personally, I happen to think it’s worth dealing with, particularly if we are the principal cause, notwithstanding that there are more stars/planets in the Universe than there are grains of sand on all the beaches on Earth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The trouble humanity has, and has always had, is one of self-definition. Before ‘human being’, first and foremost, we seem to want to put this or that random accident of birth, or this or that imagined daddy in the sky. Individually, this is not an issue. However, when we band together with others on the basis of random accidents of birth and imagined daddies in the sky, the trouble starts. Nietzsche looked at this in the eye and called it: In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. With an outlier like Putin, we need to develop a workable system of removing such dictators from positions of power. In the kindergarten, the staff don’t allow a single bully to ride roughshod over others as whim dictates. Why, then, do we allow this as adults? 👀
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
While observing the bedlam being played out daily on our screens, I couldn’t help but be struck by how eerily similar this whole farrago is to Kubrick’s Dr Strangelove , with a slight tweaking of point-of-view, and flipping of roles, in which America is Russia and Russia is America. In Kubrick’s masterpiece, American Brigadier General Jack D Ripper (Putin), has been driven insane with paranoia by the events of the Cold War. (In Putin’s case insanity and monomaniacal post-Cold War paranoia at a loss and diminution of his beloved Russia, as was USSR.) Ripper has become convinced that there is a plot by the ‘Commies’ (USA/NATO in Putin’s case) to ‘sap and contaminate our precious bodily fluids’. (In Putin’s case to sap and contaminate the minds of the Russians, and the idea of a Greater Russian Empire.) Ripper decides to take pre-emptive, first-strike unilateral action by striking the USSR. (Putin’s pre-emptive strike on Ukraine, and by extension the West in general.) The B-52s, under Ripper’s command, go in and hydrogen bomb the USSR. (Mercifully, Putin has not yet gone this far.) The US president along with his back-room staff attempt to stop the bombers from delivering their payload. (We can only pray Putin has back-room staff strong enough and prepared to step in if he tries to fulfill his nuclear threat.) Here’s the rub, however, the only way to stop the bombers in Dr Strangelove ,is a recall code which only Ripper knows. (We must pray, even the atheists/agnostics amongst us, that with Putin, it’s not only him that has access to the button.) The US government tries to capture Ripper to get the recall code from him, but Ripper gets away. (Will we be able to stop Putin?) The really scary kicker in Kubrick’s film, however, is that the Soviets have built a doomsday machine that will launch enough missiles to destroy all life on Earth if an American nuclear bomb hits them. (I’m pretty confident Putin’s enemies - us - won’t go this far.) Eventually, Ripper is overpowered, but shoots himself before the recall code can be given. (An inside job on Putin, perhaps, before he can incinerate the planet?) One man ignores the recall code and piles headlong towards Moscow. (A member of Putin’s inner team, perhaps?) He attempts to drop the bomb. (On Ukraine? On Europe? On America?) After some door-jamming black humour he opens the doors and rides down on the bomb. 💣 Moscow retaliates with horrifying consequences for the planet. (Surely the West won’t go this far.) Let’s hope that, in this case, life won’t imitate art.👀
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This reporter and these defenders of their territory are brave and deserve the utmost respect. However, today in his meeting with Biden, Zelensky used that word I’ve heard a lot this past year with reference to Russia: “unprovoked”. Full disclosure: I’m no fan of Putin. To the contrary, in fact, I disdain his illegal invasion of a sovereign, self-governing territory. However, this war was hardly ‘unprovoked’. Post the Cold War, NATO expressly promised not to expand “one inch” east towards Russia. For the past 30 years, like a slowly rising tide, it has been flowing towards the east and is now just about lapping onto Russian shores. We need to be honest here. NATO’s pledge not to expand, and the subsequent abandonment of that promise explicitly provoked Putin and Russia. This is an important context (perhaps the key context) to understand the Russian view of US policies, especially so given the ample warnings from US diplomats and foreign policy experts down the years that expanding NATO was liable to poke the Russian bear.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This was America doing what America does since about 1776. At the time justified as being all about Iraq’s (non-existent) WMDs – or other purported goals, such as a desire to “spread democracy” or satisfy the oil or Israel lobbies; the real reason the Bush administration invaded Iraq was the same reason Truman dropped (unnecessarily) the atomic bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima: its demonstration effect. As with this latter barbaric, immoral atrocity, which was intended to send a post-WW2 message to the rest of the world (particularly the USSR) of “don’t mess with us, or else”, a quick and decisive victory in the heart of the Arab world would send a message to all countries, especially to recalcitrant regimes such as Syria, Libya, Iran, or North Korea, that American hegemony was here to stay.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Patrick-y4d1z Utter tosh. The indigenous peoples of Palestine are the Bedouin Jahalin, al-Kaabneh, al-Azazmeh, al-Ramadin and al-Rshaida, not the Jews. The Palestinians have just as much to a claim on Gaza as the Israelis on this basis, and indeed, arguably more of a claim if we’re going to go down the invidious DNA road. One other thing: if the Palestinians had been armed to the teeth over the decades and bankrolled, say, by China, in the way Israel has been bankrolled by America there is no way on Yahweh’s or Allah’s Earth Israel would be throwing its bullying (Israel state behaviour reminds me of the schoolyard bully par excellence) weight around in such a cavalier manner to this day. Imo, a huge part of the behaviour of the Israeli state since its founding can be explained that because of the Holocaust they feel they can do more or less what they want because of the natural sympathy the world has/had for their plight and what happened to Jews in WW2 and because they’re backed and armed to the teeth by America. That natural sympathy decreases by the day with Netanyahu’s reckless, scattergun actions.
1
-
1
-
@NaturesGarlands I think you misunderstand my “a little bizarre”. I was referring to the notion that a large tranche of Israelis appear to think their state’s behaviour over the past 75 years hasn’t contributed to what Hamas did in any way. Hamas is a symptom here (albeit a particularly nasty, vicious symptom), not the disease. That said, I’m aware that Hamas has in its founding charter the destruction of the Israeli state, so I’m in no way dismissing or underestimating their nastiness; however, I’m willing to bet very good money that the vast, vast majority of Palestinians would be quite willing to live peacefully side by side with Israel in their own state. Of course, even in these circumstances, groups like Hamas will still exist, no doubt, but a just peace granting the basic dignity and security and freedom that we all aspire to would go a long way to resolving this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why should anyone be surprised by this? China is a Communist state run by
the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and Communism - theoretically, ideologically and historically - opposed God and all forms of religion. From the time of Karl Marx to today, communism is based on the abolition of religion. What did Marx say? “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.” Notwithstanding that the Chinese Constitution acknowledges freedom of religion and religious practice, when you have a specific region of the country that is almost majority Muslim (45% at the last census - the rest being Han Chinese), it’s no wonder Beijing is getting twitchy. This is a good example of if a country is going to have freedom of religion, it’s quite important that there is a broad and healthy mix. When one particular faith coagulates in one corner of the country, and this faith is anathema to the ruling regime, we can expect exactly what is happening; like the silencing of influential voices as with this lady. Add to this a strong Uyghur nationalist movement seeking independence and autonomy, and it only raises the stakes. It would be akin to having a Communist government in London and the whole of Scotland were Pakistani Muslim, say, and they were calling and agitating for a separate, autonomous Muslim state. Ethnicity and organised religion have so much to answer for.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@louderanimationTV Lol@“the Bible is the sole source of truth”. 🤣 As far as I can see, the Bible is a barbaric piece of primitive manmade nonsense. Richard Dawkins summed this up rather nicely: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” He he. You still have a good day now. 👍🤣
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@niblet112 While the Americans have blood on their hands all down their timeline since 1620, to call Putin a ‘pussycat’ is stretching the credibility of even the most non-tendentious of onlookers. He expunges enemies with impunity. The list of people suspected murdered on orders from the Russian leader or people close to him is long. He imprisons dissenters without a second thought. According to a list from Russian human-rights group Memorial, there were 102 people held in Russian prisons for their political beliefs as of 2016. In this, Putin’s Russia was continuing Tsarist and Soviet traditions, sending political dissenters to Siberia or to work camps as in Stalinist days. He occupies foreign territory. He annexed Crimea in 2014 and started sponsoring rebels in eastern Ukraine. He quashes opposition ruthlessly, as befitting the dictator for par excellence. Russia has suppressed political opposition using an arsenal of techniques. These range from laws limiting free assembly and other civil rights 3, to jailing protestors for vague offenses such as “hooliganism,” to using the notoriously corrupt courts to convict opponents of embezzlement or tax fraud, to straightforward police intimidation, as well as murder. Prominent opponents have been forced into silence or exile. He abets some of the world’s most egregious bloodshed. For example, seeking to gain influence in the Middle East, Putin supported the murderous regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, in what was then the deadliest war of the 21st century. Russia’s military help was priceless to Assad. Western powers and the UN accused the alliance of indiscriminately targeting civilians. And now he’s just launched a merciless offensive against a self-governing sovereign territory, while threatening the rest of us with nuclear annihilation into the bargain. Pussy cat? Nah. 🐈⬛
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MahloudMahloud Huh? 🤔 Have you read your Koran lately? You must have a different, bowdlerised copy to mine which says: (9:5) “And when the forbidden months have passed, kill the idolaters wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat, then leave their way free. Surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.”
Now call me “modern”, but I refuse to put one ounce of my faith and mental energy in a book which explicitly tells me to “kill the idolaters”.
The sooner humanity can get beyond these primitive, barbaric texts penned by men thousands of years ago, the better.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bartholomewdan Just for the record: I live in a tenement of at least 25 people top to bottom. Of those people, I can count 7 nationalities. We all get on like a house on fire. My only ever issues with immigration were 2-fold: 1. It should be strictly controlled by the host nation. 2. As an agnostic, I wholly mistrust all organised religion, but it seems to me there is a certain cohort of Muslims who want to impose their ways and mores and religious laws wherever they go. I find that anathema. The rest? Poles, Spanish, Chinese, Indians, Americans, Malays, Thais, Japanese etc etc. I have zero issue with.
One final thing, in my experience, those who bang on about ‘indigenous’ this and ‘indigenous’ that are almost without exception the last kind of people I want to share my genes with. Facts. By this I mean that they are, again almost without exception, badly educated, incurious, staggeringly dull and here’s the utterly ironic clincher: almost to a man and a woman they have worse basic English skills than those migrants they bemoan! Ta da! 🎉
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The trouble humanity has, and has always had, if one of self-definition. Before ‘human being’, first and foremost, we seem to want to put this or that random accident of birth, or this or that imagined daddy in the sky. Individually, this is not an issue. However, when we band together with others on the basis of random accidents of birth and imagined daddy’s in the sky, the trouble starts. Nietzsche looked at this in the eye and called it: In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. With an outlier like Putin, we need to develop a workable system of removing such dictators from positions of power. In the kindergarten, the staff don’t allow a single bully to ride roughshod over others as whim dictates. Why, then, do we allow this as adults? 👀
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ewan8947 Yeah, but with a name like ‘Ewan’ we all get where your loyalties are gonna lie. No, I meant what I said word for word; comparatively-speaking, Scotland’s scenery is deeply underwhelming. Just over the Channel you have the 4,000m+ staggering majesty of the Alps and the 3,000m+ sublimity of the Pyrenees: proper mountain systems with foothills and changes of scenery at every turn. Scottish scenery, to me, is just one bleak blob, really, sans majesty and sans sublimity. If you call yourself a mountainous country, for me the minimum is 3,000m or you don’t qualify. We have hills, at best. I see mild diversion when I look upon Scotland’s scenery; not the quite literally breath-taking, jaw-dropping beauty and sublimity of the Bernina Express route in Switzerland, for example, or the wonderful sense of sheer 3,000m walls of rock rising metres away from you as you take the train from Toulouse to Latour de Carol in France, as another example. I’ve tripped the West Highland Line a couple of times: it doesn’t compare to its aforementioned European cousins and so, so many other places around the world I could name in 25 seconds.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The first thing that strikes anyone without skin in the game of this conflict, is how easy it is to solve. The essential point is a simple one: two peoples of roughly equal size have a claim to the same land. The solution is, obviously, to create two states side by side. However, those who do have a tendentious, non-objective point of view, namely the rabid rabbis and the mad mullahs and the pervervid priests, have served to scupper any chances of solution, obvious to everyone else. But the exclusive claims to god-given authority, made by hysterical clerics on both sides and further stoked by Armageddon-minded wacko Christians who hope to bring on the Apocalypse tout de suite (preceded by the death or conversion of all Jews), have made the situation insufferable, literally and metaphorically, and put the whole of humanity in the position of hostage to a squabble that now features the threat of nuclear conflagration. The moral of this sad, sorry tale, full of sound and fury, is that organised religion has so much to answer for, we may be here until the seas run dry and rocks melt in the hot middle-eastern sun, before it can claim any kind of alibi.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bignumbers Not quite a decade. About 4 years. Nice try, though. The reason gun crime continued to rise was because the definition was too wide-ranging; it included everything and anything, every single report where a victim reported that a gun was used, even if that gun was never fired, even if it was a replica, or a fake, or even a toy. So by 2003, the laws were refined. The use of air weapons and pellet guns, which made up a large number of gun crime complaints, was taken out of the Firearms Act and put under the auspices of the new Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, which meant gun crime figures purely under their Firearms Act definition began to decrease markedly thanks to reclassification taking air weapons out of the equation. Gun crime began to decrease for about 10 or 12 years after that, and it’s only in the last two years that we’ve seen it start to creep up again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elcristoph7380 Look, I’ll make this simple for you. Buckle in. Frankly, no idea why anyone else should be butting in with what a woman does with her own body. It’s her choice. Simply no one else’s business. Those who bore on about the “rights of the unborn” seem to be overestimating human life. I’m willing to bet that if you ask 100 people randomly whether they would have wanted to be born (knowing what we do as humans), the vast majority of them would decline the offer. Invariably, it’s those holy rollers who adhere to primitive scriptures written by men thousands of years ago who cause all the trouble here. It’s no accident that abortion rights are such a hot topic in the US, a country with an alarmingly high belief in invisible daddies in the sky. Preventing legal access to abortion doesn’t stop abortions from happening, it just prevents safe abortions as women will seek dangerous underground methods if the legal option is denied them. Another thing that’s always confused me in this debate is how the pro-lifers in the US are oh so keen to “protect the life of the unborn” by denying legal access to abortion, but are quite free and easy with the lives of the born, and are all for any Tom, Dick or Dirty Harry buying a gun like they’re buying candy from a store and going out and shooting up a school every other week. Seems like there’s a contradiction there. Personally, my only issue with abortion is pain. Does the unborn foetus feel pain? On this basis, it should be done as early as possible in the gestation but the bottom line here is simple: it’s a woman’s right to choose what she does with her own body.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JeffreyGoddin Nah, Jeffey, it’s just a wee bitty karmic blowback for oor TastyTwat, as he is the hypocrite par excellence, never supplying a decent argument, yet calling out others all the time for exactly the same thing.👍 For example, Jeffey, TastyTwat abhors homosexuality such that he appears to think homosexuals should be unfairly discriminated against. Can you believe that, Jeffey? In 2023? Of course, we all know the reason TastyTwat finds homosexuality anathema but he’s too much of a coward to admit it and argue his case in a public forum, m8.😉
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bennyacosta1560 What’s really bad, though, and the essential cause of all this trouble (and the trouble of mankind since the year dot), is hitching your core identity to an accident of birth. Main problem of humans is one of self-definition; before ‘human being’ too many of us want to put family, clan, tribe, nation, religion. This is, essentially, why we can’t tolerate one another. Most of us can’t raise our game to see that a random, arbitrary accident of birth, something in which you had no say, is a nonsensical, irrational, pointless, and very, very dangerous notion to cleave to, given 300,000 murderously squabbling years of Homo Sapiens. Along with imagined daddies in the sky to shore up our fear of death, nationalism is the most egregious, baleful blight human beings ever had the misfortune to invent. As we speak, insular human beings are murdering themselves over an accident of birth. The gods, if they existed, would look down on us and weep.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Full disclosure: I’m agnostic, apolitical and anational. This needs to be said: Putin is not mad; rather, he considers NATO/USA/West an encroaching mortal threat, and I think he has a point. It’s too easy to label him as Vlad the Mad, the unhinged, sexually repressed freak (he’s that, all right - if he just came out he could save us a whole lotta trouble), but he’s simply acting according to his vision of the world. Where I and Vlad part company, is where he invades self-governing, sovereign territories, no matter how much he may think he has a claim on them, like in a child-custody battle. However, it’s vitally important we don’t paint Putin as this non-human ‘monster’; he’s far from that.😳
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
With men and hidebound organised religion colliding here, the Taliban are the definition of ‘toxic masculinity’ par excellence, justifying their primitive, barbaric crap against women by holding up a text where the main character married a 9 year old when he was 53! This latter issue is noticeably little remarked upon. No, as an agnostic, all organised religion is essentially poppycock and balderdash invented by men, for men. Put the religious boot on the other foot: a dictatorial, all-female regime holds power and dictates down to the minutest detail what men can and cannot do; do you think for one minute men would tolerate this? Of course not, and they would be right not to tolerate it. Whenever any organised religious crap pollutes my world, the wonderful wise words of Robert M Pirsig provide more wisdom and solace (and just plain truth!) than all the so-called ‘holy books’ put together: “You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.” Amen. 🙏
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@abcdefghijk1024 Just for the record, I refuse to take seriously any religion, any religion that states the following: Surah 3:151: We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve (all non-Muslims) …
Surah 2:191: And kill them (non-Muslims) wherever you find them … kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers (non-Muslims).
Surah 9:5: Then kill the disbelievers (non-Muslims) wherever you find them, capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush …
You believe in a barbaric primitive text from the Dark Ages written by men. Also, why does it not surprise me that someone who believes this astonishingly nasty and poisonous manmade bull-crap is also an upholder of the death penalty.
Oh yeah, and one other thing which I personally don’t think is highlighted enough about your oh so holy Islam: good old Mohammed’s future wife, Aisha, was just six years old when she was betrothed to ole Mo, himself in his 50s, and only nine when the marriage was consummated. Now I don’t know about you but in my world that makes your “prophet” a paedophile. Lovely role model stuff there for us all to follow.👍
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@1990758 Huh? I’m here to tell you that “racism has gone away” with this soul. Tbqf, it was never here as you are speaking to a fellow human who never got the “hate another human being based on their skin colour” memo. Makes utterly no sense. I tend to dislike people for their ideas, their beliefs, their opinions, their dress-sense, and not something over which they have utterly no say or control. It’s like dissing gays. Pointless. Not only pointless, but utterly stupid, as no one chooses their sexuality, just as no one chooses their skin colour. And even if we did choose our skin colour and sexuality, it still wouldn’t bother me one iota that some random has a different skin colour and sexuality to me. The sooner we can move beyond this primitive nonsense as a species, the better.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@richardcummins5465 Just for the record, I actually said this: Ben Brown, Christian Fraser, Anita McVeigh, Sophie Raworth, Jane Hill, Fiona Bruce, Victoria Derbyshire… Quite a few, petal, but what the colour of someone’s skin has to do with reading an autocue escapes me.
You may have missed it, Dicky. 👍
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This came through on the wires from Kepler- 452b. I thought I’d pass it on.
“The trouble humanity has, and has always had, is one of self-definition. Before ‘human being’, first and foremost, you seem to want to put this or that random accident of birth, or this or that imagined daddy in the sky. Individually, this is not an issue. However, when you band together with others on the basis of random accidents of birth and imagined daddies in the sky, the trouble starts. One of your wise ones, Nietzsche, looked at this in the eye and called it: In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. With an outlier like Putin, you need to develop a workable system of removing such dictators from positions of power. In the kindergarten, the staff don’t allow a single bully to ride roughshod over others as whim dictates. Why, then, do you allow this as adults?”👽
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gemm4793 Remind me never to knock on your door if I’m ever in a pickle. I’m afraid you might ask me if I’m ‘born and bred’ before you deign to help me. Last time I checked we were all born and bred on planet Earth. The greatest problem humanity faces, and has always faced is one of perspective. We have narrowed our vision such that are unable to see the universal wood for the exclusive trees. We have hitched our star to this or that family, clan, tribe, nationalism, religion such that we have become deluded, unable to serenely see what actually is. We are cosmic dust on a grain of sand, one of trillions of grains of sand, whirling around a nuclear reactor, one of trillions of nuclear reactors and we are willing to abase ourselves to murdering one another for an accident of birth, or an imagined daddy in the sky? Has it come to this? There are alien civilisations who use this Earth as a cosmic pit stop on their intergalactic travels and they look at us and weep. They have perspective. They can literally see the Earth in toto. They cannot see the pettifogging, sanguinary squabbles over this or that imaginary line drawn on a map. They cannot see the ignorant ranters championing their imagined God, ranked against the ignorant ranters championing their imaginary God. The solution to all this nonsense is very simple: expand your terms of self-definition. Refuse to accept a random, arbitrary accident of birth as a salient marker of your identity. Refuse to accept unthought-out shibboleths handed down to you to shore up your fear of death. Refuse to be proud, unless your pride is grounded in self-motivated, self-guided achievement, and not some random, bizarre, nonsensical ‘pride’ based on the fact your mother happened to plop you out here, and not there. None of this would matter a fig, but for a key point: we now, at this critical juncture in our cosmic journey, face the very real and present danger of incinerating this planet and everything on it. Really. We are better than that. You, Gemm, are better than that. I hope.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
While observing the bedlam being played out daily on our screens, I couldn’t help but be struck by how eerily similar this whole farrago is to Kubrick’s Dr Strangelove , with a slight tweaking of point-of-view, and flipping of roles, in which America is Russia and Russia is America. In Kubrick’s masterpiece, American Brigadier General Jack D Ripper (Putin), has been driven insane with paranoia by the events of the Cold War. (In Putin’s case insanity and monomaniacal post-Cold War paranoia at a loss and diminution of his beloved Russia, as was USSR.) Ripper has become convinced that there is a plot by the ‘Commies’ (USA/NATO in Putin’s case) to ‘sap and contaminate our precious bodily fluids’. (In Putin’s case to sap and contaminate the minds of the Russians, and the idea of a Greater Russian Empire.) Ripper decides to take pre-emptive, first-strike unilateral action by striking the USSR. (Putin’s pre-emptive strike on Ukraine, and by extension the West in general.) The B-52s, under Ripper’s command, go in and hydrogen bomb the USSR. (Mercifully, Putin has not yet gone this far.) The US president along with his back-room staff attempt to stop the bombers from delivering their payload. (We can only pray Putin has back-room staff strong enough and prepared to step in if he tries to fulfill his nuclear threat.) Here’s the rub, however, the only way to stop the bombers in Dr Strangelove ,is a recall code which only Ripper knows. (We must pray, even the atheists/agnostics amongst us, that with Putin, it’s not only him that has access to the button.) The US government tries to capture Ripper to get the recall code from him, but Ripper gets away. (Will we be able to stop Putin?) The really scary kicker in Kubrick’s film, however, is that the Soviets have built a doomsday machine that will launch enough missiles to destroy all life on Earth if an American nuclear bomb hits them. (I’m pretty confident Putin’s enemies - us - won’t go this far.) Eventually, Ripper is overpowered, but shoots himself before the recall code can be given. (An inside job on Putin, perhaps, before he can incinerate the planet?) One man ignores the recall code and piles headlong towards Moscow. (A member of Putin’s inner team, perhaps?) He attempts to drop the bomb (On Ukraine? On Europe? On America?) After some door-jamming black humour he opens the doors and rides down on the bomb. 💣 Moscow retaliates with horrifying consequences for the planet. (Surely the West won’t go this far.) Let’s hope that, in this case, life won’t imitate art.👀
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Cimex090 I agree, to an extent. Putin, even if he can subjugate Ukraine and install a pro-Russian puppet regime, will have a mighty hard time keeping the Ukrainians quiescent. However, at this point, aged 70, he has little to lose, so I wouldn’t put it past him to head North and see what he can do with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Of course, at this point, NATO would have to enter and that could be curtains for life on Earth as we know it, Jim.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I was born in the UK. In the UK there is a common trope that the further north one goes, the friendlier the people become. I am here to say poppycock to that theory. For, I, a northerner, have met with just as equal human warmth and friendliness south of Sheffield, as I have north of that city. (I picked Sheffield arbitrarily to demarcate the ‘north’ from the ‘south’.) My observation is that this overt ‘friendliness’ claimed by northerners is contingent. It depends, too often, on your being and identifying with the tribe they belong to. This is to be expected. Human beings are terribly tribal beasts. One should speak a certain way and voice certain opinions before you can be ‘accepted’ by any self-defined tribe. Why do you think that those who go to live in another place, almost without exception, change their accent and speech patterns to fit into said place? To be accepted. Vaughan may, or may not, have said the comments imputed to him. All I can say is that it wouldn’t surprise me if he did say them. Does that make him prejudiced based on the colour of one’s skin? Perhaps. All I would say is quite simple: birds of a feather flock together. 🦢
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jefftheriault3914 The trouble humanity has, and has always had, is one of self-definition. Before ‘human being’, first and foremost, we seem to want to put this or that random accident of birth, or this or that imagined daddy in the sky. Individually, this is not an issue. However, when we band together with others on the basis of random accidents of birth and imagined daddies in the sky, the trouble starts. Nietzsche looked at this in the eye and called it: In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. With an outlier like Putin, we need to develop a workable system of removing such dictators from positions of power. In the kindergarten, the staff don’t allow a single bully to ride roughshod over others as whim dictates. Why, then, do we allow this as adults? 👀
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jegamespeed5399 Again, wholly disingenuous, bud. 🤦♂️ The criminalisation of homosexuality by the British during their colonisation of Uganda in the late 19th century has helped shape how modern-day Ugandans view homosexuality. There is documentation of various cultures across the continent, including in pre-colonial Uganda, treating gender and sexuality as continuums rather than binaries. Furthermore, while non-conforming sexualities may have been frowned upon in certain communities, they were only actually criminalised by the colonial rulers. Like other former British colonies, Uganda chose to preserve the English legal system following its independence in 1962, including sodomy laws. In one sense, then, the colonial legacy of homophobia and its role in ‘civilising’ and attempting to morally de-value diverse practices of gender and sexuality across various indigenous populations that did not fall under imperial heteronormative and patriarchal structures lives on. In other words, hypocrite Museveni and his ilk are essentially just continuing and promulgating the views that were introduced by the colonialists in terms of criminalising homosexuality. He makes a great fanfare of calling out the ‘evil West’ but this whole criminalising of homosexuality in Uganda was a Western invention! 🤦♂️
1
-
There is a direct correlation between countries which belong to the Commonwealth, and therefore have previously been under British rule, and countries that still have homophobic biphobic and/or transphobic legislature in their constitutions. 25% of the world’s population (2.4 billion people) currently live in a country belonging to the Commonwealth, however they make up a disproportionately large 50 per cent of countries that still criminalise homosexuality. There are currently 64 countries (out of 195) in the world that criminalise homosexuality. Of these 64, almost half (29) belong to the Commonwealth.
Africa
Algeria
Cameroon ✅
Chad
Comoros
Egypt
Eritrea
Eswatini (Swaziland) ✅
Ethiopia
Gambia ✅
Ghana ✅
Guinea
Kenya ✅
Liberia
Libya
Malawi ✅
Mauritania
Morocco
Nigeria ✅
Senegal
Sierra Leone ✅
Somalia
South Sudan
Sudan
Tanzania
Togo ✅
Tunisia
Uganda ✅
Zambia ✅
Zimbabwe ✅
Asia, including the Middle East
Afghanistan
Bangladesh ✅
Brunei ✅
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Kuwait
Lebanon
Malaysia ✅
Maldives ✅
Myanmar
Oman
Pakistan ✅
Palestine
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Sri Lanka ✅
Syria
Turkmenistan
United Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan
Yemen
Americas
Grenada ✅
Guyana ✅
Jamaica ✅
St Lucia ✅
St Vincent & the Grenadines ✅
Oceania
Kiribati ✅
Niue
Papua New Guinea ✅
Samoa ✅
Solomon Islands ✅
Tonga ✅
Tuvalu ✅
✅ Commonwealth member
The vast majority of the remaining 64 are majority Islamic. What does this prove? Well, organised religion plays a vital role in the criminalisation of homosexuality. However, the key takeaway for the purposes of this video, is that in Uganda, prior to the widespread introduction of Christianity (Uganda is currently 84% Christian/14% Muslim) homosexuality was largely tolerated and not legislated for within the various tribal denominations. At worst, in most cases, it was merely ignored. Yet here we have Museveni telling the ‘evil West’ to butt-out, when the criminalisation of homosexuality was brought in directly on the back of a Bible (…and a Quran!) by a bunch of Westerners! Hypocrisy? 🤦♂️
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ijumpjudyy “I might be what you groomers call ‘asexual’”. (Ijump Judy) Wow! 😮That’s interesting, groomer! Never thought you’d reveal your hand like that, groomer. K, you don’t dig sex and because you don’t dig sex you ban consenting adults, who do dig sex, from having sex, groomer!? I fear revealing that has put the final nail in your intolerant ⚰️, groomer! 😂 👍😉 Hey, groomer! I’m proud to be a cucumber hater and not be so silly, irrational, intolerant and thick as to ban cucumbers, groomer! 🤣🥒 She also admitted this recently: “Imagine being an atheist.” Having previously denied her God credentials she scores yet another own 🥅! 🤡
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@reginageorge4 It’s funny, groomer, and we all know you’re a pure wee virginal soul devoted to your invisible daddy in the sky, but if and when you do get round to having sex, would you be willing to have others (individual or state) monitoring your every move to ensure you are having the ‘right’ kind of sex? If you answer ‘yes’ to that, you’re a liar. No one, straight, gay, lesbian and everything in between wants their intimate lives policed by some kind of Big Brother. Just for once, think about this stuff from the point of view of whom it directly affects, groomer. 😊
1
-
1
-
@jegamespeed5399 Don’t be silly son. Do you honestly think girls in their right minds are going to willingly consent to having their genitals lopped off? 🤦♂️
“Listen, hun, after school today me and your mother are going to take you to have a completely unnecessary medical procedure involving having your clitoris hacked off thereby leading to your being unable to have sexual pleasure ever and leading to the following possible complications:”
•severe pain
•excessive bleeding (haemorrhage)
•genital tissue swelling
•fever
•infections e.g., tetanus
•urinary problems
•wound healing problems
•injury to surrounding genital tissue
•shock
•vaginal problems (discharge, itching, bacterial vaginosis and other infections)
menstrual problems (painful menstruations, difficulty in passing menstrual blood, etc.)
•scar tissue and keloid;
•sexual problems (pain during intercourse, decreased satisfaction)
•increased risk of childbirth complications (difficult delivery, excessive bleeding, caesarean section, need to resuscitate the baby, etc.) and newborn deaths
•need for later surgeries: for example, the sealing or narrowing of the vaginal opening (type 3) may lead to the practice of cutting open the sealed vagina later to allow for sexual intercourse and childbirth (deinfibulation). Sometimes genital tissue is stitched again several times, including after childbirth, hence the woman goes through repeated opening and closing procedures, further increasing both immediate and long-term risks
•psychological problems (depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, low self-esteem, etc.).
•death.
“Now, darling, would you like to consent to this procedure?” 🤦♂️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jegamespeed5399 “So, it’s interesting that you claim these behaviours (i.e. FGM) are so widely accepted and supported, yet somehow they’ve completely disappeared in Africa.” (Jegamespeed5399)
What an outright liar you are, dude. 🤦♂️ They have far from ‘completely disappeared’. In fact, to the contrary, FGM is still a widespread practice in several African nations.
In 2022, Somalia reported the highest number of girls and women who had suffered from female genital mutilation. A majority of women in the country, 98 percent, between the ages of 15 and 49, had been subject to this practice. The second highest rate was in Guinea, with 97 percent of women having gone through the practice. The World Health Organization defines female genital mutilation as any procedure that involves partial or total removal of the external genitalia and/or injury to the female genital organs for non-therapeutic reasons.
Prevalence of female genital mutilation (FGM) among women and girls in Africa in 2022, by country:
•Somalia ~ 98%
•Guinea ~ 97%
•Djibouti ~ 93%
•Egypt ~ 91%
•Mali ~ 91%
•Eritrea ~ 89%
•Sudan ~ 88%
•Burkina Faso ~ 76%
•Gambia ~ 75%
•Ethiopia ~ 74%
•Mauritania ~ 69%
•Guinea-Bissau ~ 45%
•Senegal ~ 26%
•Nigeria ~ 25%
•Kenya ~ 21%
•Uganda ~ 1%
(Statista)
Nice try though, bud. 🤦♂️
1
-
Finally, I want to come to the question of sex. If anything proves that religion is not just man-made but masculine-made, it is the incessant repetition of rules and taboos governing the sexual life. The disease is pervasive, from the weird obsession with virginity and the one-way birth canal through which prophets are “delivered,” through the horror of menstrual blood, all the way to the fascinated disgust with homosexuality and the pretended concern with children (who suffer worse at the hands of the faithful than any other group). Male and female genital mutilation; the terrifying of infants with hideous fictions about guilt and hell; the wild prohibition of masturbation: religion will never be able to live down the shame with which it has stained itself for generations in this regard, anymore than it can purge its own guilt for the ruining of formative periods of precious life. (Christopher Hitchens)
Uganda, dear reader, is currently 84% Christian/14% Muslim. Moreover, whisper it, that 84% Christianity was imported by the ‘evil West’ Museveni and his ilk so detest! 🎉Seems odd. Almost… hypocritical! 🤔
1
-
@ijumpjudyy “I might be what you groomers call ‘asexual’”. (Ijump Judy) Wow! 😮That’s interesting, groomer! Never thought you’d reveal your hand like that, groomer. K, you don’t dig sex and because you don’t dig sex you ban consenting adults, who do dig sex, from having sex, groomer!? I fear revealing that has put the final nail in your intolerant ⚰️, groomer! 😂 👍😉 Hey, groomer! I’m proud to be a cucumber hater and not be so silly, irrational, intolerant and thick as to ban cucumbers, groomer! 🤣🥒 She also admitted this recently: “Imagine being an atheist.” Having previously denied her God credentials she scores yet another own 🥅! 🤡
1
-
The Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Act (2023) prescribes up to 20 years in prison for ‘promotion of homosexuality’, life imprisonment for ‘homosexual acts’, and the death penalty for ‘aggravated homosexuality’.
1. How, exactly, can you ‘promote’ homosexuality? This isn’t about trying to persuade people to become gay, as if you are trying to persuade people to vote for you, or persuade people to buy a new whizz-bang, fancy-pants vibrator (ijumpjudy has just put in her order - extra batteries included 😉); that’s impossible. It’s not like you can ‘catch’ homosexuality like you can catch a virus, any more than you can ‘catch’ heterosexuality. You are either gay or you aren’t, just as you are heterosexual, or you aren’t. So, primitively prescribing 20 years imprisonment for something you either are or aren’t no matter how much ‘promoting’ is done is bizarre, indeed. 🤦♂️
2. There are no such things as exclusively ‘homosexual acts’. If this term refers to anal/oral sex, then, spoiler alert: millions of heterosexuals engage in these acts, too, so to describe them as exclusively ‘homosexual acts’ is stupid and renders the description invalid. Even if we accept that giving/receiving a BJ or having anal sex is a ‘homosexual act’, you’re really going to imprison someone for life for this? 🤦♂️
3. ‘Aggravated homosexuality’ has the death penalty as its punishment and is described as an offence including ‘serial offenders, same-sex rape, sex in a position of authority or procured by intimidation, sex with persons older than seventy-five, sex with the disabled and mentally ill, and homosexual acts committed by a person with a previous conviction for homosexuality.’
Ok, let’s break this down:
•‘serial offenders’ - presumably this means people who just have consenting sex on many occasions. Death? Don’t be silly. 🤦♂️
•‘same-sex rape’ - as with heterosexual rape, this should obviously be criminalised, but I wouldn’t support death for it.
•‘sex in a position of authority or procured by intimidation’ - in the case of a position of authority, if the other person consents to the sex, I see no issue with it. If intimidation is involved and no consent given, then this should be criminalised.
•‘sex with persons older than 75’ - lol. I see absolutely no reason to criminalise someone for having sex with anyone who is above the age of consent. If that person is 75, 85 or 105, and they consent to the sex, then to institute the death penalty for this is quite nonsensical. 🤦♂️
•‘sex with the disabled and mentally ill’ - lol. If a disabled gay man or woman wants to have sex, where’s the fucking issue? 🤷♂️ Death for this? Yer having a fucking larff, aincha? 🤦♂️ Obviously, the mentally ill could be compromised when it comes to consent, so this needs sensitivity.
•‘homosexual acts committed by a person with a previous conviction for homosexuality’ - so, if someone has been convicted just once for, say, giving a BJ (which isn’t actually a ‘homosexual act’, as we’ve established there is no such thing) to his partner, and he’s caught doing it again, you kill him? Really? 🤦♂️
When you look closely at the Bill, it becomes increasingly ridiculous and barely believable that in 2024 we are criminalising people for simply having consensual adult sex. 🤦♂️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Africa is the only continent where decriminalization of homosexuality has not been widespread since the mid-twentieth century. Africa is also, traditionally, the POOREST (in 2024, the top 10 poorest countries were all African - Global Finance), LEAST LITERATE (in 2024, of the 10 most illiterate countries, 9 were in Africa - World Atlas), LEAST DEMOCRATIC (in 2023, of the 30 least democratic countries, 16 were in Africa, 11 were in Asia and 3 were in South America - Statista), MOST RELIGIOUS (in 2024, of the 10 most religious countries, 7 were in Africa - Ceoworld) and the MOST CORRUPT (in 2023, of the 20 most corrupt countries, 11 were in Africa - Statista) continent on the planet.
Coincidence? 🤷♂️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ijumpjudyy “I might be what you groomers call ‘asexual’”. (Ijump Judy) Wow! 😮That’s interesting, groomer! Never thought you’d reveal your hand like that, groomer. K, you don’t dig sex and because you don’t dig sex you ban consenting adults, who do dig sex, from having sex, groomer!? I fear revealing that has put the final nail in your intolerant ⚰️, groomer! 😂 👍😉 Hey, groomer! I’m proud to be a cucumber hater and not be so silly, irrational, intolerant and thick as to ban cucumbers, groomer! 🤣🥒 She also admitted this recently: “Imagine being an atheist.” Having previously denied her God credentials she scores yet another own 🥅! 🤡
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jegamespeed5399 “So, it’s interesting that you claim these behaviours (i.e. FGM) are so widely accepted and supported, yet somehow they’ve completely disappeared in Africa.” (Jegamespeed5399)
What an outright liar you are, dude. 🤦♂️ They have far from ‘completely disappeared’. In fact, to the contrary, FGM is still a widespread practice in several African nations.
In 2022, Somalia reported the highest number of girls and women who had suffered from female genital mutilation. A majority of women in the country, 98 percent, between the ages of 15 and 49, had been subject to this practice. The second highest rate was in Guinea, with 97 percent of women having gone through the practice. The World Health Organization defines female genital mutilation as any procedure that involves partial or total removal of the external genitalia and/or injury to the female genital organs for non-therapeutic reasons.
Prevalence of female genital mutilation (FGM) among women and girls in Africa in 2022, by country:
•Somalia ~ 98%
•Guinea ~ 97%
•Djibouti ~ 93%
•Egypt ~ 91%
•Mali ~ 91%
•Eritrea ~ 89%
•Sudan ~ 88%
•Burkina Faso ~ 76%
•Gambia ~ 75%
•Ethiopia ~ 74%
•Mauritania ~ 69%
•Guinea-Bissau ~ 45%
•Senegal ~ 26%
•Nigeria ~ 25%
•Kenya ~ 21%
•Uganda ~ 1%
(Statista)
Nice try though, bud. 🤦♂️
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jegamespeed5399 “So, it’s interesting that you claim these behaviours (i.e. FGM) are so widely accepted and supported, yet somehow they’ve completely disappeared in Africa.” (Jegamespeed5399)
What an outright liar you are, dude. 🤦♂️ They have far from ‘completely disappeared’. In fact, to the contrary, FGM is still a widespread practice in several African nations.
In 2022, Somalia reported the highest number of girls and women who had suffered from female genital mutilation. A majority of women in the country, 98 percent, between the ages of 15 and 49, had been subject to this practice. The second highest rate was in Guinea, with 97 percent of women having gone through the practice. The World Health Organization defines female genital mutilation as any procedure that involves partial or total removal of the external genitalia and/or injury to the female genital organs for non-therapeutic reasons.
Prevalence of female genital mutilation (FGM) among women and girls in Africa in 2022, by country:
•Somalia ~ 98%
•Guinea ~ 97%
•Djibouti ~ 93%
•Egypt ~ 91%
•Mali ~ 91%
•Eritrea ~ 89%
•Sudan ~ 88%
•Burkina Faso ~ 76%
•Gambia ~ 75%
•Ethiopia ~ 74%
•Mauritania ~ 69%
•Guinea-Bissau ~ 45%
•Senegal ~ 26%
•Nigeria ~ 25%
•Kenya ~ 21%
•Uganda ~ 1%
(Statista)
Nice try though, bud. 🤦♂️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ijumpjudyy “I might be what you groomers call ‘asexual’”. (Ijumpjudyy) Wow! 😮That’s interesting, groomer! Never thought you’d reveal your hand like that, groomer. K, you don’t dig sex and because you don’t dig sex you ban consenting adults, who do dig sex, from having sex, groomer!? I fear revealing that has put the final nail in your intolerant ⚰️, groomer! 😂 👍😉 Hey, groomer! I’m proud to be a cucumber hater and not be so silly, irrational, intolerant and thick as to ban cucumbers, groomer! 🤣🥒
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The criminalisation of homosexuality by the British during their colonisation of Uganda in the late 19th century has helped shape how modern-day Ugandans view homosexuality (a salient legacy of this is that today’s Uganda is 84% Christian, a Christianity introduced by the West). There is documentation of various cultures across the continent, including in pre-colonial Uganda, treating gender and sexuality as continuums rather than binaries. Furthermore, while non-conforming sexualities may have been frowned upon in certain communities, they were only actually criminalised by the colonial rulers. Like other former British colonies, Uganda chose to preserve the English legal system following its independence in 1962, including sodomy laws. In one sense, then, the colonial legacy of homophobia and its role in ‘civilising’ and attempting to morally de-value diverse practices of gender and sexuality across various indigenous populations that did not fall under imperial heteronormative and patriarchal structures lives on. In other words, hypocrite Museveni and his ilk are essentially just continuing and promulgating the views that were introduced by the colonialists in terms of criminalising homosexuality. He makes a great fanfare of calling out the ‘evil West’ but this whole criminalising of homosexuality in Uganda was a Western invention! 🤦♂️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jegamespeed5399 Lol. Not at all. I happen to dig much about Africa, bud. You have the wrong dude, once again. Visit Morocco regularly. Dig Egypt and also have been to South Africa. I don’t ‘glorify’ the West, bud. Quite the opposite, I consider the West in terms of its geopolitics and meddling directly in the political affairs of other countries iniquitous. However, what I am not prepared to do, as a human being (not just a culturally-conditioned construct of my random accident of birth I had zero say in), is sit by if I see what I perceive as an irrational, barbaric, irrational law or practice (such as this particular law and FGM) regardless of where it happens. It just so happens that it’s in Africa that homosexuals are the most legally oppressed. And for what? 🤷♂️ Just fancying an adult member of the same sex and having consensual sex with them! 🤦♂️ If you expect me to say silent, as a human being given what I perceive as so much, iniquitous, primitive nonsense, think again, bud.👍
1
-
@jegamespeed5399 Why are you constantly so hyper-sensitive about A N Other passing comment on some of the laws of your random accident of birth country, bud? I never got this, bud. I have zero issue with you commenting on the laws of any country, including my own random accident of birth country, so why this hyper-sensitivity, bud? It’s just a random accident of birth you had no say in, bud. Not all laws/cultures are equally valid, in the same way, bud. If I see what I perceive to be an irrational, stupid law somewhere, anywhere, I’ll point it out and I grant that same liberty to anyone else, including you, bud. 🤦♂️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dude, you’re on it! 👏 Africa is the only continent where decriminalization of homosexuality has not been widespread since the mid-twentieth century. Africa is also, traditionally, the POOREST (in 2024, the top 10 poorest countries were all African - Global Finance), LEAST LITERATE (in 2024, of the 10 most illiterate countries, 9 were in Africa - World Atlas), LEAST DEMOCRATIC (in 2023, of the 30 least democratic countries, 16 were in Africa, 11 were in Asia and 3 were in South America - Statista), MOST RELIGIOUS (in 2024, of the 10 most religious countries, 7 were in Africa - Ceoworld) and the MOST CORRUPT (in 2023, of the 20 most corrupt countries, 11 were in Africa - Statista) continent on the planet.
Yet, the morons in Uganda are twitching their net curtains over which consenting adult is doing it with whom?! 🤦♂️ 🤷♂️
This is just one reason and a prime example of why Africa lags, and hasn’t (and doesn’t) pull its weight in world terms. Wrong focus. 🔭
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
“I might be what you groomers call ‘asexual’”. (Ijump Judy) Wow! 😮That’s interesting, groomer! Never thought you’d reveal your hand like that, groomer. K, you don’t dig sex and because you don’t dig sex you ban consenting adults, who do dig sex, from having sex, groomer!? I fear revealing that has put the final nail in your intolerant ⚰️, groomer! 😂 👍😉 Hey, groomer! I’m proud to be a cucumber hater and not be so silly, irrational, intolerant and thick as to ban cucumbers, groomer! 🤣🥒 She also admitted this recently: “Imagine being an atheist.” Having previously denied her God credentials she scores yet another own 🥅! 🤡
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Never got the hate what another human does when it comes to their sexual orientation memo. Makes utterly no sense. I tend to dislike people for their ideas, their beliefs, their opinions, their dress-sense, and not something over which they have utterly no say or control. It’s like dissing people with different skin colour. Pointless. Not only pointless, but totally stupid and moronic, as no one chooses their skin colour, just as no one chooses their sexuality. But here’s the clincher for me: even if we did choose our skin colour and sexuality, it still wouldn’t bother me one iota that some random has a different skin colour or sexuality. The sexual business of consenting adults is no one else’s business. The sooner we can move beyond this primitive nonsense as a species, the better. To me, being homophobic is a bit like feeling resentful of someone digging Uranus because you’re not an astronomer! 🔭
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Don’t doubt that morons like this are everywhere. It’s not an African thing, per se, but… Africa is the only continent where decriminalization of homosexuality has not been widespread since the mid-twentieth century. Africa is also, traditionally, the POOREST (in 2024, the top 10 poorest countries were all African - Global Finance), LEAST LITERATE (in 2024, of the 10 most illiterate countries, 9 were in Africa - World Atlas), LEAST DEMOCRATIC (in 2023, of the 30 least democratic countries, 16 were in Africa, 11 were in Asia and 3 were in South America - Statista), MOST RELIGIOUS (in 2024, of the 10 most religious countries, 7 were in Africa - Ceoworld) and the MOST CORRUPT (in 2023, of the 20 most corrupt countries, 11 were in Africa - Statista) continent on the planet.
Coincidence? 🤷♂️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jihadjane0
Here’s my ‘scripture’, as far as I have such a thing:
This is what you shall do; Love the earth and sun and the animals, despise riches, give alms to every one that asks, stand up for the stupid and crazy, devote your income and labor to others, hate tyrants, argue not concerning God, have patience and indulgence toward the people, take off your hat to nothing known or unknown or to any man or number of men, go freely with powerful uneducated persons and with the young and with the mothers of families, read these leaves in the open air every season of every year of your life, re-examine all you have been told at school or church or in any book, dismiss whatever insults your own soul, and your very flesh shall be a great poem and have the richest fluency not only in its words but in the silent lines of its lips and face and between the lashes of your eyes and in every motion and joint of your body. (Walt Whitman)
Note the very important ’re-examine all you have been told at school or church or in any book, DISMISS WHATEVER INSULTS YOUR OWN SOUL.’
Islam insults my soul. 😊
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Act (2023) prescribes up to 20 years in prison for ‘promotion of homosexuality’, life imprisonment for ‘homosexual acts’, and the death penalty for ‘aggravated homosexuality’.
1. How, exactly, can you ‘promote’ homosexuality? This isn’t about trying to persuade people to become gay, as if you are trying to persuade people to vote for you, or persuade people to buy a new whizz-bang, fancy-pants vibrator (ijumpjudy has just put in her order - extra batteries included 😉); that’s impossible. It’s not like you can ‘catch’ homosexuality like you can catch a virus, any more than you can ‘catch’ heterosexuality. You are either gay or you aren’t, just as you are heterosexual, or you aren’t. So, primitively prescribing 20 years imprisonment for something you either are or aren’t no matter how much ‘promoting’ is done is bizarre, indeed. 🤦♂️
2. There are no such things as exclusively ‘homosexual acts’. If this term refers to anal/oral sex, then, spoiler alert: millions of heterosexuals engage in these acts, too, so to describe them as exclusively ‘homosexual acts’ is stupid and renders the description invalid. Even if we accept that giving/receiving a BJ or having anal sex is a ‘homosexual act’, you’re really going to imprison someone for life for this? 🤦♂️
3. ‘Aggravated homosexuality’ has the death penalty as its punishment and is described as an offence including ‘serial offenders, same-sex rape, sex in a position of authority or procured by intimidation, sex with persons older than seventy-five, sex with the disabled and mentally ill, and homosexual acts committed by a person with a previous conviction for homosexuality.’
Ok, let’s break this down:
•‘serial offenders’ - presumably this means people who just have consenting sex on many occasions. Death? Don’t be silly. 🤦♂️
•‘same-sex rape’ - as with heterosexual rape, this should obviously be criminalised, but I wouldn’t support death for it.
•‘sex in a position of authority or procured by intimidation’ - in the case of a position of authority, if the other person consents to the sex, I see no issue with it. If intimidation is involved and no consent given, then this should be criminalised.
•‘sex with persons older than 75’ - lol. I see absolutely no reason to criminalise someone for having sex with anyone who is above the age of consent. If that person is 75, 85 or 105, and they consent to the sex, then to institute the death penalty for this is quite nonsensical. 🤦♂️
•‘sex with the disabled and mentally ill’ - lol. If a disabled gay man or woman wants to have sex, where’s the fucking issue? 🤷♂️ Death for this? Yer having a fucking larff, aincha? 🤦♂️ Obviously, the mentally ill could be compromised when it comes to consent, so this needs sensitivity.
•‘homosexual acts committed by a person with a previous conviction for homosexuality’ - so, if someone has been convicted just once for, say, giving a BJ (which isn’t actually a ‘homosexual act’, as we’ve established there is no such thing) to his partner, and he’s caught doing it again, you kill him? Really? 🤦♂️
When you look closely at the Bill, it becomes increasingly ridiculous and barely believable that in 2024 we are criminalising people for simply having consensual adult sex. 🤦♂️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jegamespeed5399 ’Fraid so, dude, and this is clearly eating you alive, bud. You can’t cope with honest, frank, moral debate and simply just justifying your position. That’s how moral debate works, bud. If you state that you consider something morally wrong to the point you support criminalising it then it’s very reasonable for your interlocutor to ask why you consider it immoral, particularly if your views are going to directly impinge on my life. 😊 In fact, it would be bizarre for the interlocutor not to ask why you consider it immoral. It works both ways. I have justified my views every step of the way here. You have done nothing but obdurately obfuscate, bluster baloney and pretentiously piffle and provide zero clarity, bud. Bad faith argumentation, bud. You play the man not the ball. I do the opposite, bud. 👍
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jegamespeed5399 Lol. Not at all. I happen to dig much about Africa, bud. You have the wrong dude, once again. Visit Morocco regularly. Dig Egypt and also have been to South Africa. I don’t ‘glorify’ the West, bud. Quite the opposite, I consider the West in terms of its geopolitics and meddling directly in the political affairs of other countries iniquitous. However, what I am not prepared to do, as a human being (not just a culturally-conditioned construct of my random accident of birth I had zero say in), is sit by if I see what I perceive as an irrational, barbaric, irrational law or practice (such as this particular law and FGM) regardless of where it happens. It just so happens that it’s in Africa that homosexuals are the most legally oppressed. And for what? 🤷♂️ Just fancying an adult member of the same sex and having consensual sex with them! 🤦♂️ If you expect me to say silent, as a human being given what I perceive as so much, iniquitous, primitive nonsense, think again, bud.👍
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jegamespeed5399 Why are you constantly so hyper-sensitive about A N Other passing comment on some of the laws of your random accident of birth country, bud? I never got this, bud. I have zero issue with you commenting on the laws of any country, including my own random accident of birth country, so why this hyper-sensitivity, bud? It’s just a random accident of birth you had no say in, bud. Not all laws/cultures are equally valid, in the same way, bud. If I see what I perceive to be an irrational, stupid law somewhere, anywhere, I’ll point it out and I grant that same liberty to anyone else, including you, bud. 🤦♂️
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jegamespeed5399 Why are you constantly so hyper-sensitive about A N Other passing comment on some of the laws of your random accident of birth country, bud? I never got this, bud. I have zero issue with you commenting on the laws of any country, including my own random accident of birth country, so why this hyper-sensitivity, bud? It’s just a random accident of birth you had no say in, bud. Not all laws/cultures are equally valid, in the same way, bud. If I see what I perceive to be an irrational, stupid law somewhere, anywhere, I’ll point it out and I grant that same liberty to anyone else, including you, bud. 🤦♂️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jegamespeed5399 Why are you constantly so hyper-sensitive about A N Other passing comment on some of the laws of your country, bud? I never got this, bud. I have zero issue with you commenting on the laws of any country, including my own, so why this hyper-sensitivity, bud? It’s just a random accident of birth you had no say in, bud. Not all laws/cultures are equally valid, in the same way, bud. If I see what I perceive to be an irrational, stupid law somewhere, I’ll point it out and I grant that same liberty to anyone else, including you, bud. 🤦♂️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jegamespeed5399 Er, obviously you don’t. I’m just a bit perplexed as to how anyone can find 2 consenting women (or men, for that matter) having sex to be ‘morally wrong’, leaving aside the religious stuff, which doesn’t apply to you. Of course, this answer won’t be enough for you, but that’s fine, I’ve got your number already. I would say this, though: you seem obsessed with this Africa vs the West thing and I can assure I’m not thinking about it like that at all. Anti-colonialist here. I’m simply thinking about it on the human level, regardless of whether that human is in Africa, Asia, Europe or anywhere else.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jegamespeed5399 Look, this is getting mighty boring, bud. Yes, I know this isn’t a moral thing for you, blah, blah, blah, and you are quite ok with others holding different moral positions. So am I. To a point. Here’s the point: the point is when these views are, as I perceive them, clearly justified. If someone asks me why, for example, I have zero issue with consensual adult incest (with no kids produced), I very reasonably expect to be asked why I hold this position. If I were to have you knock on my bedroom door and demand to be let in to verify I wasn’t f*cking the ‘wrong’ person, I’m very reasonably going to ask why you are doing this. Not sure what you don’t get about this. And please don’t beat me to death with your boring crap about ‘I don’t care about others holding different moral positions’. I repeat, neither do I, as long as I can clearly see some kind of reasonable justification for them. With this law and the morality underpinning it I can see no clear, credible reason why consenting adults should be criminalised for having sexual relations. This is a universal human thing, for me, not a Uganda vs. the West thing which it is so very obviously is for you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Does it? Well, the past and the present certainly don’t belong to Africa. Africa is, traditionally, the poorest (in 2024, the top 10 poorest countries were all African - Global Finance), least literate (in 2024, of the 10 most illiterate countries, 9 were in Africa - World Atlas), least democratic (in 2023, of the 30 least democratic countries, 16 were in Africa, 11 were in Asia and 3 were in South America - Statista), most religious (in 2024, of the 10 most religious countries, 7 were in Africa - Ceoworld) and the most corrupt (in 2023, of the 20 most corrupt countries, 11 were in Africa - Statista) continent on the planet. Seems to me, it’s long before time Africa started pulling its weight and contributed. It’s like a primitive child that never grew up and is incapable of thriving.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Much more than that, dude.
Africa is the only continent where decriminalization of homosexuality has not been widespread since the mid-twentieth century. Africa is also, traditionally, the POOREST (in 2024, the top 10 poorest countries were all African - Global Finance), LEAST LITERATE (in 2024, of the 10 most illiterate countries, 9 were in Africa - World Atlas), LEAST DEMOCRATIC (in 2023, of the 30 least democratic countries, 16 were in Africa, 11 were in Asia and 3 were in South America - Statista), MOST RELIGIOUS (in 2024, of the 10 most religious countries, 7 were in Africa - Ceoworld) and the MOST CORRUPT (in 2023, of the 20 most corrupt countries, 11 were in Africa - Statista) continent on the planet.
Coincidence? 🤷♂️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
“I might be what you groomers call ‘asexual’”. (Ijump Judy) Wow! 😮That’s interesting, groomer! Never thought you’d reveal your hand like that, groomer. K, you don’t dig sex and because you don’t dig sex you ban consenting adults, who do dig sex, from having sex, groomer!? I fear revealing that has put the final nail in your intolerant ⚰️, groomer! 😂 👍😉 Hey, groomer! I’m proud to be a cucumber hater and not be so silly, irrational, intolerant and thick as to ban cucumbers, groomer! 🤣🥒 She also admitted this recently: “Imagine being an atheist.” Having previously denied her God credentials she scores yet another own 🥅! 🤡
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jegamespeed5399 Just before I finally go today, I want to repeat this to you, as I still can’t grasp it: Why are you constantly so hyper-sensitive about A N Other passing comment on some of the laws of your random accident of birth country, bud? I never got this, bud. I have zero issue with you commenting on the laws of any country, including my own random accident of birth country, so why this hyper-sensitivity, bud? It’s just a random accident of birth you had no say in, bud. Not all laws/cultures are equally valid, in the same way, bud. If I see what I perceive to be an irrational, stupid law somewhere, anywhere, I’ll point it out and I grant that same liberty to anyone else, including you, bud. G’night.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Flunky000 The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. (Richard Dawkins)
Amen to that. 🙏
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jegamespeed5399 Just for the record, bud, before I check if Christianity had anything to do with these laws, bud; if it did, then that renders your ‘cultural’ independence null and void, no, bud? But even if it didn’t, Christianity was imported. Aye. And as we speak, 84% of your countrymen are Christian, bud. Moreover, 14% are Islamic, bud. Last time I checked, bud, both these religions aren’t Ugandan, bud. 😢😂
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jegamespeed5399 Ok, bud. I’m gonna repeat this point and then I’m done here, bud, as you seem immune to having a rational conversation: And another thing, bud. Why are you constantly so hyper-sensitive about A N Other passing comment on some of the laws of your country, bud? I never got this, bud. I have zero issue with you commenting on the laws of any country, including my own, so why this hyper-sensitivity, bud? It’s just a random accident of birth you had no say in, bud. Not all laws/cultures are equally valid, in the same way, bud. If I see what I perceive to be an irrational, stupid law somewhere, I’ll point it out and I grant that same liberty to anyone else, including you, bud. 🤦♂️
G’night, bud.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jegamespeed5399 And another thing, bud. Why are you constantly so hyper-sensitive about A N Other passing comment on some of the laws of your country, bud? I never got this, bud. I have zero issue with you commenting on the laws of any country, including my own, so why this hyper-sensitivity, bud? It’s just a random accident of birth you had no say in, bud. Not all cultures are equally valid, in the same way, bud. If I see what I perceive to be an irrational, stupid law somewhere, I’ll point it out and I grant that same liberty to anyone else, including you, bud. 🤦♂️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jegamespeed5399 Lmao. Christianity is the predominant religion in Uganda. According to the 2014 census, over 84 percent of the population was Christian, while about 14 percent of the population adhered to Islam, making it the largest minority religion. Anglicanism and Catholicism are the main Christian denominations in the country. Your largest tribe, the Baganda, are Christian, about evenly divided between Catholic and Protestant. Approximately 15 percent are Muslim (followers of Islam), so stop with this tribal bollocks, as if they’re all following indigenous practices these days. 🤦♂️ It was when they were still largely following indigenous practices that, similarly to neighbouring Kenya, Rwanda and Burundi, male homosexual relations were acknowledged and tolerated in pre colonial Ugandan society.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Proof that this is just a nasty, irrational, childish “yah-boo sucks!” gesture to the ‘evil West’, aside from Museveni’s explicit call to “resist imperialist pressure”, is the widespread denial that homosexuality was practised before colonisation, and homosexuality is often considered ‘un-African’ or ‘Western’; the promotion of LGBTQ rights is often viewed as a form of neocolonialism, the imposition of outside cultural values upon Africa.
Similarly to neighbouring Kenya, Rwanda and Burundi, male homosexual relations were acknowledged and tolerated in pre colonial Ugandan society. Among the Baganda, Uganda's largest ethnic group, homosexuality was usually treated with indifference. The Luganda term abasiyazi refers to homosexuals, though usage nowadays is commonly pejorative. Among the Lango people, mudoko dako individuals were believed to form a "third gender" alongside male and female. The mudoko dako were effeminate men, mostly treated by Langi society as women and could marry other men without social sanctions. Homosexuality was also acknowledged among the Teso, Bahima, Banyoro, and Karamojong peoples. Societal acceptance eroded after the arrival of the British and the creation of the Protectorate of Uganda.
Laws prohibiting same-sex sexual acts were first put in place under British colonial rule. They were retained and expanded following independence. Conservative evangelical Christian missionaries have had significant influence on the passage of anti-LGBT legislation in Uganda.
Conclusion: Museveni and others supporting this barbaric, primitive, benighted law (with provision for execution of consenting adults for having sex) claim it’s a reaction and resistance to ‘Western imperialists’, but yet it is those very ‘imperialists’, in the form of Conservative Christian groups (and Christianity more generally) who have been the major driving force behind this legislation. Museveni and the rest supporting this law cannot have it both ways: they cannot claim to abhor ‘Western imperialists’ and then proceed to enact a law largely driven by Western Christians. Where I come from, that’s called hypocrisy. 🤦♂️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cchris874 Ignore Jegamoron. He’s bad faith. What he omitted to explain was ‘aggravated homosexuality’ has the death penalty as its punishment and is described as an offence including ‘serial offenders, same-sex rape, sex in a position of authority or procured by intimidation, sex with persons older than seventy-five, sex with the disabled and mentally ill, and homosexual acts committed by a person with a previous conviction for homosexuality.’
Ok, let’s break this down:
•‘serial offenders’ - presumably this means people who just have consenting sex on many occasions. Death? Don’t be silly. 🤦♂️
•‘same-sex rape’ - as with heterosexual rape, this should obviously be criminalised, but I wouldn’t support death for it.
•‘sex in a position of authority or procured by intimidation’ - in the case of a position of authority, if the other person consents to the sex, I see no issue with it. If intimidation is involved and no consent given, then this should be criminalised.
•‘sex with persons older than 75’ - lol. I see absolutely no reason to criminalise someone for having sex with anyone who is above the age of consent. If that person is 75, 85 or 105, and they consent to the sex, then to institute the death penalty for this is quite nonsensical. 🤦♂️
•‘sex with the disabled and mentally ill’ - lol. If a disabled gay man or woman wants to have sex, where’s the fucking issue? 🤷♂️ Death for this? Yer having a fucking larff, aincha? 🤦♂️ Obviously, the mentally ill could be compromised when it comes to consent, so this needs sensitivity.
•‘homosexual acts committed by a person with a previous conviction for homosexuality’ - so, if someone has been convicted just once for, say, giving a BJ (which isn’t actually a ‘homosexual act’, as we’ve established there is no such thing) to his partner, and he’s caught doing it again, you kill him? Really? 🤦♂️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@benjiisagoodboy Oh, I think you misunderstand me, I’m not blaming you personally, Benji (that would be deeply silly, given you had nothing to do with it), I was just making the point you gained independence in 1776 and for 89 years after you continued slavery. Much is of this is on you. But not personally. In the same way, when you have a dig at the UK, like here, you appear to think I personally need to take responsibility for it; I don’t. Like you, I had zero say in my random accident of birth and, moreover, I don’t support any form of slavery or, indeed, colonialism. Glad we cleared that up. 😊
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Flunky000 Utterly irrelevant, sweetheart, Dickwad. This is simply about autonomous, individual human beings being allowed to fuck whomever they want, Dickwad. Can you not see this, Dickwad? Ok. How about this, Dickwad? I dictate the terms and conditions of your sex life and whom you can and cannot fuck, Dickwad. Happy, Dickwad? Nah, Dickwad. You’re not happy at all, are you, Dickwad? Look, Dickwad, can we just simplify this? K, Dickwad. Ty, Dickwad. The consenting sex lives of adults are none of your fucking business, Dickwad. Yeah, Dickwad. Or whatever. And stuff. Facts. Dickwad. 😊 👍
1
-
@Peep-010 Utterly irrelevant, sweetheart, Dickwad. This is simply about autonomous, individual human beings being allowed to fuck whomever they want, Dickwad. Can you not see this, Dickwad? Ok. How about this, Dickwad? I dictate the terms and conditions of your sex life and whom you can and cannot fuck, Dickwad. Happy, Dickwad? Nah, Dickwad. You’re not happy at all, are you, Dickwad? Look, Dickwad, can we just simplify this? K, Dickwad. Ty, Dickwad. The consenting sex lives of adults are none of your fucking business, Dickwad. Yeah, Dickwad. Or whatever. And stuff. Facts. Dickwad. 😊 👍
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SaintThomasAquinas1 1.‘There is a Natural Law’. Er, once again, is there? Far from clear, let alone established.
2. ‘We were created man and woman’. Er, were we? By whom, exactly? Far from clear, let alone established.
3. ‘Sex was created with the purpose of procreation’. Er, was it? Says who? You? And who told you? Far from clear, let alone established.
4. ‘To have sex without being open to procreation is wrong’. Er, is it? Says who? You? And who told you? Far from clear, let alone established.
5. ‘As homosexual acts are against procreation they are always wrong’. Er, are they? Says who? You? Who told you? Far from clear, let alone established.
Word of advice: just pretentiously stating crap doesn’t thereby make it true. 👍
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jegamespeed5399 Here’s what I do, bud: I take each issue as it’s presented to me and look at it. Now there are lots of things that go on in my random accident of birth country that I disagree with. Similarly, if I look elsewhere and see what I perceive as irrational nonsense, I’ll call it out. I’m not seeking to impose. You do what you want. But I have free speech, bud. As do you. I hope. In your random accident of birth country. So I will use it and I expect you to do the same. If you came to my random accident of birth country and saw what you thought was a shitty, barbaric, irrational, primitive law, I’d actively welcome your pointing that out to me, bud. 😊 I’d, more importantly, actively welcome why you thought it was a shitty, barbaric, irrational and primitive law, bud.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jegamespeed5399 Why are you constantly so hyper-sensitive about A N Other passing comment on some of the laws of your country, bud? I never got this, bud. I have zero issue with you commenting on the laws of any country, including my own, so why this hyper-sensitivity, bud? It’s just a random accident of birth you had no say in, bud. Not all laws/cultures are equally valid, in the same way, bud. If I see what I perceive to be an irrational, stupid law somewhere, I’ll point it out and I grant that same liberty to anyone else, including you, bud. 🤦♂️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jegamespeed5399 “You know that most cases of FGM are consensual, right? Many people are raised in environments where this practice is normalised, so they don’t see any issue with it. They consent to it.” (Jegamespeed5399) 🤦♂️
Don’t be silly, son. Do you honestly think 12 year old girls in their right minds are going to willingly consent to having their genitals lopped off? FGM is essentially the female equivalent of a dude having his tackle lopped off. 🤦♂️
“Listen, hun, after school today me and your mother are going to take you to have a completely unnecessary medical procedure involving having your clitoris hacked off thereby leading to your being unable to have sexual pleasure ever and leading to the following possible complications:”
•severe pain
•excessive bleeding (haemorrhage)
•genital tissue swelling
•fever
•infections e.g., tetanus
•urinary problems
•wound healing problems
•injury to surrounding genital tissue
•shock
•vaginal problems (discharge, itching, bacterial vaginosis and other infections)
menstrual problems (painful menstruations, difficulty in passing menstrual blood, etc.)
•scar tissue and keloid;
•sexual problems (pain during intercourse, decreased satisfaction)
•increased risk of childbirth complications (difficult delivery, excessive bleeding, caesarean section, need to resuscitate the baby, etc.) and newborn deaths
•need for later surgeries: for example, the sealing or narrowing of the vaginal opening (type 3) may lead to the practice of cutting open the sealed vagina later to allow for sexual intercourse and childbirth (deinfibulation). Sometimes genital tissue is stitched again several times, including after childbirth, hence the woman goes through repeated opening and closing procedures, further increasing both immediate and long-term risks
•psychological problems (depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, low self-esteem, etc.)
•death.
“Now, darling, would you like to consent to this completely unnecessary procedure?” 🤦♂️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Shawneecherrypie So, let me get this straight. Tonya worked at Fay School. Texas, right? (That would make sense, given her unhinged Christian religiosity.) Just Googled that. The dude she’s stalking worked under her. And just because he’s gay, she’s stalking him here? Is that it? As I said earlier, she’s unhinged and quite possibly dangerous. She’s sounds quite literally insane and I have a background in psychiatry. (Edit: her monomaniacal concentration on homosexuality suggests mental instability. It goes beyond just being religious. She’s, for some reason - likely religious upbringing - been taught that being gay is ‘wrong’ and this has warped her completely. Never quite encountered the intensity of her hatred on this matter. All that ‘groomer, blah, blah, blah’ sh*t everywhere she encounters the topic of homosexuality. The parents will have a lot to answer for here, I bet.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
“I might be what you groomers call ‘asexual’”. (Ijumpjudyy) Wow! 😮That’s interesting, groomer! Never thought you’d reveal your hand like that, groomer. K, you don’t dig sex and because you don’t dig sex you ban consenting adults, who do dig sex, from having sex, groomer!? I fear revealing that has put the final nail in your intolerant ⚰️, groomer! 😂 👍😉 Hey, groomer! I’m proud to be a cucumber hater and not be so silly, irrational, intolerant and thick as to ban cucumbers, groomer! 🤣🥒 She also admitted this recently: “Imagine being an atheist.” Having previously denied her God credentials she scores yet another own 🥅! 🤡 😂
1
-
“I might be what you groomers call ‘asexual’”. (Ijumpjudyy) Wow! 😮That’s interesting, groomer! Never thought you’d reveal your hand like that, groomer. K, you don’t dig sex and because you don’t dig sex you ban consenting adults, who do dig sex, from having sex, groomer!? I fear revealing that has put the final nail in your intolerant ⚰️, groomer! 😂 👍😉 Hey, groomer! I’m proud to be a cucumber hater and not be so silly, irrational, intolerant and thick as to ban cucumbers, groomer! 🤣🥒
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jegamespeed: “If people should be allowed to act on their feelings, why stop with homosexuality? Why not allow bestiality, paedophilia, incest etc.?”
Ah, ye olde ‘homosexuality is the gateway drug to paedophilia and bestiality’ trope, beloved by those with no real argument. It apparently hasn’t crossed Jegameclown’s 🤡 tiny brain that homosexuality is consensual and involves adults. Paedophilia and bestiality aren’t and involve children and animals. As for incest, well, personally, if all parties are consenting adults and there is zero chance of offspring resulting, not sure why anyone should be messing here. Answers on a postcard, kids!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jegamespeed5399 There are currently 64 countries (out of 195) in the world that criminalise homosexuality. What do these countries (aside from criminalizing homosexuality) have in common? Three factors - economic development (or the lack thereof), democracy (or the lack thereof) and religion - seem to be significant. All or most of these countries are some of the poorest on the planet, have very strong religious leanings (mainly Islam/Christianity) and score very poorly on democracy tables when ranked. Of the 64, 29 are in benighted Africa, 22 in Asia, 5 in the Americas and 7 in Oceania. No country in enlightened Europe has a law against homosexuality. Why would it? 🤷♂️ It’s just 2 consenting adults having sex after all, and, last time I checked, that’s really no one (state or individual) else’s business. Europe also has some of the wealthiest countries on Earth, relatively low levels of organised religion and high levels of democracy. Here’s the unholy list of the countries that like to unreasonably, unjustifiably meddle in the sex lives of consenting adults:
Africa
Algeria
Cameroon
Chad
Comoros
Egypt
Eritrea
Eswatini (Swaziland)
Ethiopia
Gambia
Ghana
Guinea
Kenya
Liberia
Libya
Malawi
Mauritania
Morocco
Nigeria
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Somalia
South Sudan
Sudan
Tanzania
Togo
Tunisia
Uganda
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Asia, including the Middle East
Afghanistan
Bangladesh
Brunei
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Kuwait
Lebanon
Malaysia
Maldives
Myanmar
Oman
Pakistan
Palestine
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Sri Lanka
Syria
Turkmenistan
United Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan
Yemen
Americas
Grenada
Guyana
Jamaica
St Lucia
St Vincent & the Grenadines
Oceania
Kiribati
Niue
Papua New Guinea
Samoa
Solomon Islands
Tonga
Tuvalu
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@something215 Well said! 👏 There are currently 64 countries (out of 195) in the world that criminalise homosexuality. What do these countries (aside from criminalizing homosexuality) have in common? Three factors - economic development (or the lack thereof), democracy (or the lack thereof) and religion - seem to be significant. All or most of these countries are some of the poorest on the planet, have very strong religious leanings (mainly Islam/Christianity) and score very poorly on democracy tables when ranked. Of the 64, 29 are in benighted Africa, 22 in Asia, 5 in the Americas and 7 in Oceania. No country in enlightened Europe has a law against homosexuality. Why would it? 🤷♂️ It’s just 2 consenting adults having sex after all, and, last time I checked, that’s really no one (state or individual) else’s business. Europe also has some of the wealthiest countries on Earth, relatively low levels of organised religion and high levels of democracy. Here’s the unholy list of the countries that like to unreasonably, unjustifiably meddle in the sex lives of consenting adults:
Africa
Algeria
Cameroon
Chad
Comoros
Egypt
Eritrea
Eswatini (Swaziland)
Ethiopia
Gambia
Ghana
Guinea
Kenya
Liberia
Libya
Malawi
Mauritania
Morocco
Nigeria
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Somalia
South Sudan
Sudan
Tanzania
Togo
Tunisia
Uganda
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Asia, including the Middle East
Afghanistan
Bangladesh
Brunei
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Kuwait
Lebanon
Malaysia
Maldives
Myanmar
Oman
Pakistan
Palestine
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Sri Lanka
Syria
Turkmenistan
United Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan
Yemen
Americas
Grenada
Guyana
Jamaica
St Lucia
St Vincent & the Grenadines
Oceania
Kiribati
Niue
Papua New Guinea
Samoa
Solomon Islands
Tonga
Tuvalu
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
By nationalising this you’re perpetuating the collective nationalist nightmare of humanity. Can’t you see this? The trouble humanity has, and has always had, is one of self-definition. Before ‘human being’, first and foremost, we seem to want to put this or that random accident of birth, or this or that imagined daddy in the sky. Individually, this is not an issue. However, when we band together with others on the basis of random accidents of birth and imagined daddies in the sky, the trouble starts. Nietzsche looked at this in the eye and called it: In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. With an outlier like Putin, we need to develop a workable system of removing such dictators from positions of power. In the kindergarten, the staff don’t allow a single bully to ride roughshod over others as whim dictates. Why, then, do we allow this as adults? 👀
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hi guys. Listen, so sorry to bother you once again so soon. However, I’ve had a major breakthrough with my Portuguese, and have now mastered the presente and imperfeito in the subjunctive. The futuro subjunctive needs a bit more work but hey, this is so cool, no? I’m, essentially, a nona-linguist, at this point. Ty. I can hear your online applause. Ty. 🙏 Guys, as I say, this is only the beginning. More updates to come. If I have any more sudden subjunctive breakthroughs you will all be the first to know. Many thanks for all your unstinting support in this matter. It means so much. Have a good day, y’all now, blah, blah, blah. 👍
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Utterly beyond me how people are fooled into believing this organised religious nonsense. Of any stripe. However, in sad times such as these, I tend to find George Carlin can invariably lift me out of the funk: “Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things He does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, He has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where He will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!
But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money!” 🤣
Amen. 🙏
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In the great GOAT debate, just for the record, Pelé didn’t officially score 1,283 goals. Pelé did score 1,283 goals, but 526 goals came in unofficial friendlies and tour games. He even counted games he played for the Sixth Coast Guard in the military competition. He officially scored 757 goals in 812 games. Moreover, strictly speaking, Pelé didn’t really ‘win’ 3 World Cups; he won 2 and a bit. Yes, he was a member of three World Cup-winning teams, but he sat out the large majority of the 1962 World Cup. All that said, he was still a terrific player, right up there in my top 5. Picking a number 1 is always an invidious task, and always depends on where and when you were born, but if I had to, yes, I’d probably pick Pelé. Just. However, if Mbappé stays healthy and motivated, I wouldn’t be surprised to be sitting here saying he’s the GOAT in 10 years’ time! ⚽️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@juanesteban8827 The difference, I think, is 2-fold: 1. Islam is unabashedly and overtly political. The Ayatollah Khomeini was quite open about this: “Islam is political or it is nothing.” This is always dangerous when you tether your personal imaginary, unverified, unverifiable invisible sky daddy to the sublunary sphere. It has no place in politics. Your religion needs to stay out of secular life. It must be a strictly private matter kept to your home and your place of worship. 2. Muslims (even the more moderate ones) tend to take the word of the Quran quite literally, in the same way all Christians did before Christianity had a Reformation and there was an Enlightenment. I live somewhere with a high Muslim population and to a man and a woman these people take the Quran 100% at its word as dictation by the Angel Gabriel to an illiterate goat herder. If you read the Quran (like the Bible) it is often a violent, nasty, horrible piece of work. If, in 2024, millions (billions!) of individuals are taking this stuff as the literal word of Allah, then it’s no wonder if people like me suggest it might be a steaming pile of 💩 that we are targeted(in the same way non-Christians we’re targeted by literalist Christians hundreds of years ago). I have no fear of critiquing the God of the Old Testament, but I wouldn’t dare publicy critique Muhammad, the Quran or Islam more generally. Why? 2 words: Salman Rushdie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mreshadow Not sure what you mean. 🤔 I just think. If you’re talking texts, I read something at 18 and 3 decades later I haven’t read anything to top it. It goes like this:
This is what you shall do: Love the earth and sun and the animals, despise riches, give alms to every one that asks, stand up for the stupid and crazy, devote your income and labor to others, hate tyrants, argue not concerning God, have patience and indulgence toward the people, take off your hat to nothing known or unknown or to any man or number of men, go freely with powerful uneducated persons and with the young and with the mothers of families, read these leaves in the open air every season of every year of your life, re-examine all you have been told at school or church or in any book, dismiss whatever insults your own soul, and your very flesh shall be a great poem and have the richest fluency not only in its words but in the silent lines of its lips and face and between the lashes of your eyes and in every motion and joint of your body. (Walt Whitman)
1
-
@sanaalkhalil Oh, I’ve read the Koran, pal. It’s a disaster zone of primitive self-contradictory dangerous nonsense my life can easily do without. It threatens you if you don’t obey. It pretends there is no compulsion…
Quran 2:256: “There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong.”
…but in the next breath it tells us:
Quran 9:5: “And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.”
Killing people if they don’t repent, establish prayer, etc is coercion/compulsion. You can’t hold a gun to someone’s head, say they have a choice, and also say they aren’t being coerced.
It’s all poppycock, invented by men, principally for men.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
My main issue is not with Peterson himself (I agree with much of what he says, leaving aside the God nonsense, which he himself almost guiltily, shamefacedly promulgates when asked about), no, my main issue is with the nauseating, sycophantic fanboys (and occasional girl) who leap to even the teeniest, tiniest criticism of him and his ideas like a pack of rabid dogs for hire. It’s hilarious and sick-inducing simultaneously; almost as if they have been hypnotised into believing Peterson cannot possibly be wrong about anything , and anyone who suggests he is, must be shot-down, silenced. Ironically, the very thing they claim ‘woke’ culture does to Peterson himself. All very bizarre.😳
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If I had to pick one writer who shaped my thinking more than any other it would be Emerson, along with his compadres, Whitman and Thoreau. He’s so eminently quotable and here are my Top 10 favourites of his:
1. Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.
2. Make your own Bible. Select and collect all the words and sentences that in all your readings have been to you like the blast of a trumpet.
3. It is easy in the world to live after the world's opinion; it is easy in solitude to live after our own; but the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude.
4. Once you make a decision, the Universe conspires to make it happen
5. Though we travel the world over to find the beautiful, we must carry it with us, or we find it not.
6. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.
7. You become what you think about all day long.
8. The good news is that the moment you decide that what you know is more important than what you have been taught to believe, you will have shifted gears in your quest for abundance. Success comes from within, not from without.
9. Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string.
10. There is a time in every man's education when he arrives at the conviction that envy is ignorance; that imitation is suicide; that he must take himself for better, for worse, as his portion; that though the wide universe is full of good, no kernel of nourishing corn can come to him but through his toil bestowed on that plot of ground which is given to him to till. The power which resides in him is new in nature, and none but he knows what that is which he can do, nor does he know until he has tried.
Like the stars ✨ in the firmament there are countless others, but perhaps I should end with this, thereby not taking Emerson’s advice: I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@26:25 The evidence is clear: the main cause of climate change is burning fossil fuels such as oil, gas, and coal. When burnt, fossil fuels release carbon dioxide into the air, causing the planet to heat up. The climate on Earth has been changing since it formed 4.5 billion years ago. Until recently, natural factors have been the cause of these changes. Natural influences on the climate include volcanic eruptions, changes in the orbit of the Earth, and shifts in the Earth's crust (known as plate tectonics). Over the past one million years, the Earth has experienced a series of ice ages, including cooler periods (glacials) and warmer periods (interglacials). Glacial and interglacial periods cycle roughly every 100,000 years, caused by changes in Earth's orbit around the sun. For the past few thousand years, Earth has been in an interglacial period with a constant temperature. However, since the Industrial Revolution in the 1800s, the global temperature has increased at a much faster rate. By burning fossil fuels and changing how we use the land, human activity has quickly become the leading cause of changes to our climate. He’s also wrong about water vapour, too. For although water vapour probably accounts for about 60% of the Earth's greenhouse warming effect, water vapour does not control the Earth's temperature. Because these gases are not condensable at atmospheric temperatures and pressures, the atmosphere can pack in much more of these gases. Seemingly, Icke never lets the facts get in the way of a good story. For Icke, it’s a case of when the legend becomes fact, print the legend. He can just continue to spout his factually incorrect legend, and let the fact checkers be damned!😳
1
-
Yeah, but our furthest out object, Voyager 1, is ‘only’ currently 14 billion miles away from Earth having been launched in 1977, whereas Proxima Centauri, our nearest star, is 4.22 light years away, or in other words, using current technology, what would take us 6,300 years to reach. This sheer scale of the Universe, for me, makes it nigh-on impossible that we have been visited by extraterrestrial beings or crafts. However, given the 200 billion trillion stars in the known Universe, I don’t for one moment, simply on the balance of statistical probability, doubt that they are ‘out there’; just not ‘in here’.
1
-
Yeah, but our furthest out object, Voyager 1, is ‘only’ currently 14 billion miles away from Earth having been launched in 1977, whereas Proxima Centauri, our nearest star, is 4.22 light years away, or in other words, using current technology, what would take us 6,300 years to reach. This sheer scale of the Universe, for me, makes it nigh-on impossible that we have been visited by extraterrestrial beings or crafts. However, given the 200 billion trillion stars in the known Universe, I don’t for one moment, simply on the balance of statistical probability, doubt that they are ‘out there’; just not ‘in here’.
1
-
Alert: Jordan Peterson is seen with woman. Cue the misogynistic fanboys leaping to their hero’s defence. ‘Oh, Jordy, gobble, gobble, yes, Jordy, gobble gobble, three bags full, gobble, gobble, we’ll protect you from that horrid womanhood, gobble, gobble. Do you still want me, Jordy? Gobble, gobble.’🥸
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This came through on the wires from Kepler- 452b. I thought I’d pass it on.
“The trouble humanity has, and has always had, is one of self-definition. Before ‘human being’, first and foremost, you seem to want to put this or that random accident of birth, or this or that imagined daddy in the sky. Individually, this is not an issue. However, when you band together with others on the basis of random accidents of birth and imagined daddies in the sky, the trouble starts. One of your wise ones, Nietzsche, looked at this in the eye and called it: In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. With an outlier like Putin, you need to develop a workable system of removing such dictators from positions of power. In the kindergarten, the staff don’t allow a single bully to ride roughshod over others as whim dictates. Why, then, do you allow this as adults?”👀
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@1newme425 America, in the purely urban sense is horrendously ugly. You are saved by the natural beauty. Here’s the difference, though: we in Europe have the natural beauty to compete with America, but we have so, so, so much more, particularly when it comes to jaw-droppingly beautiful villages/towns/cities. In my experience, those folks who trumpet the US as the nation, par excellence, are those Americans who don’t have, and have never had a passport.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Full disclosure: I’m agnostic, apolitical and anational. I just don’t want to be incinerated in a thermonuclear annihilation scenario, that’s all. But this needs to be said, if we are to have any understanding as to what is going on here: Putin is not mad; rather, he considers NATO/USA/West an encroaching mortal threat, and I think he has a point. It’s too easy to label him as Vlad the Mad, the unhinged, sexually repressed freak (he’s that, all right - if he just came out he could save us a whole lotta trouble here), but he’s simply acting according to his vision of the world. Where I and Vlad part company, is where he invades self-governing, sovereign territories, no matter how much he may think he has a claim on them, like in some geopolitical version of a child-custody battle. However, it’s vitally important we don’t paint Putin as this non-human ‘monster’; he’s far from that.😳
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jandrost4664 Frankly, I can’t quite believe you are operating under the theory that the Earth is flat. I work with science in these matters and the overwhelming credible scientific evidence points to a spinning ellipsoid Earth.
1. Watch a ship sail off to sea
Without being in the sky, it is impossible to see the curvature of the Earth. However, you can always see a demonstration of this if you visit a harbour or any place with a wide-open view of the water.
If you are able to watch a ship sail off to sea, watch its mast and flag as it fades off into the distance. You will notice that, in fact, it does not "fade off into the distance" at all; instead, you will see its mast and flag appear to slowly sink. The ship sailed beyond the point at which you would see it. Just to be sure, bring a pair of binoculars with you so that you can see even farther off into the distance.
It's as if you're watching it go over to the other side of a hill. This phenomenon can only be explained by a sphere-shaped planet.
2. Watch a lunar eclipse
Solar eclipses get all the attention, but if you are able to catch a glimpse of a lunar eclipse, you can see evidence that the Earth is, indeed, round. Here's how it works: Earth passes between the moon and sun, so that the sun projects Earth’s shadow onto the Moon in the night sky. You've probably seen a partial lunar eclipse without even noticing it; if the moon looks orange, that's a sign of a lunar eclipse. If you've ever seen a total lunar eclipse, you probably noticed that the shadow did not look like this. A round shadow crossed over a round object. This does not sound like a thing that would happen if we were on a plane with all of the celestial bodies simply hovering overhead—or, perhaps more asinine, if the sun were orbiting Earth and not vice versa.
3. Climb a tree
Imagine a vast plane with but one tree smack in the middle. If the earth were flat, your vision would extend exactly as far while standing at the base of the tree as it would when at the top of the tree. However, the farther you climb, the farther your line of sight will extend to the horizon. That's because parts of Earth that were concealed from view by its curvature are now revealed because your position has changed. Back to the vast plane. The naked eye can see objects that are millions of miles away in space. Theoretically, with a clear line of sight on a clear night, one would also be able to see bright lights from far-away cities. That this is not possible is further evidence of a round, not flat, Earth
4. Travel through, or even within, different time zones
According to a 2008 paper in Applied Optics by David K. Lynch, the curvature of the earth becomes somewhat visible at an elevation of 35,000 feet (with a >60° field of view) and more easily visible at an elevation of 50,000 feet. So if you're on the right commercial flight, you might be able to see the curvature of the earth with your own two eyes.
In the event that you're not high enough, though, you can still experience the curvature of the earth another way. For example, if you were to fly all the way around the world, you'd find that it would be nighttime in part of the world and daytime in another part. In that way, the existence of time zones itself is proof that the Earth is round.
Taken another way, you wouldn't even need to travel through different time zones. Time zones are wide enough that you will see the sun rising and/or setting later in the western part of a time zone than in the eastern part. According to the Farmers' Almanac, the sun will rise and set roughly four minutes later for every 70 miles you drive from east to west. If you wanted to combine this experiment with the previous one, you could note how much more of Earth you can see when you begin your ascent into the air than you can while you are sitting on the tarmac waiting to take off.
5. Watch a sunset
Pick a nice spot from which you can watch a sunset (we'll call this point A). Ideally, you'd have a clear horizon in front of you, and behind you would be some sort of elevated point that you can quickly access (a hill, a building with at least two floors, or perhaps the aforementioned tree; we'll call this point B).
Watch the sunset from point A, and once the sun is out of sight, hurry on over to point B. With the added elevation provided by point B, you should be able to see the sun above the horizon. If Earth were flat, the sun would not be visible at any elevation once it had set. Because Earth is round, the sun will come back into your line of sight.
If you don't have a hill, you could even try lying on your stomach to watch the sunset and then standing up to get a higher line of sight.
6. Measure shadows across the country
Pick two locations that are some distance apart (at least a couple hundred miles from each other and on the same meridian). Grab two sticks or dowels (or other objects) of equal length, two tape measures, and a friend. Each of you will take one stick/dowel/object and one tape measure to your location, stick the object into the ground, and measure the shadow. (For accuracy, you should both take your measurements at the same time of day.)
On a flat Earth, the shadow that is cast by each would be of the same length. However, if you and your friend compare notes, you'll find that one shadow was longer than the other. That's because, due to the curvature of Earth, the sun will hit one part of Earth at one angle and another part of Earth at a different angle even at the same time of day.
This experiment has been around since about 240 B.C., when Greek mathematician Eratosthenes compared the shadows cast in both Syene—now Aswan, Egypt—and Alexandria on the summer solstice. Eratosthenes had learned of a well in Syene where once a year on the summer solstice, the sun would illuminate the entire bottom of the well and tall buildings and other objects would not cast a shadow. However, he noticed that shadows were being cast on the summer solstice in Alexandria, so he measured the angle of the shadow and found it to be an angle of about 7.2°.
7. Google "International Space Station photos"
Seriously, just look at some of the amazing photos you’ll find. There appears to be quite the curvature there.
Now if you’d like to provide evidence to back your flat-Earth theory and God, I’d be grateful.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iNCoMpeTeNtplAyS I agree with that bit. Having looked into this quite a bit, here’s my provisional conclusion as I currently see it: Zelensky is a Western stooge fronting a proxy war for the West. He is a CIA-installed puppet there to act as a buffer to Putin’s expansionist intentions. This war all along has been about America and the West goading Putin to hit Ukraine, which he duly did. All that said, my bottom line here is simple: if a majority of Ukrainians want nothing to do with Putin and are looking West, not East, then this majority opinion should be honoured in the existence of a sovereign, independent, self-governing Ukraine. Now, because Russian/Soviet and Ukrainian history are so intertwined down the centuries, this was never going to be easy as there does appear to be a significant minority of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine who look to Moscow more than Kiev. My guess is that if Putin could get away with holding Crimea, and the Donbas area and its environs, he would walk away tomorrow. However, this would be very dangerous on Ukraine’s part to concede these things, as it sends the wrong message that if Russia chooses to attack its neighbours it gets a few prizes, albeit not the big prize of Ukraine in toto, simply because the wellspring of opinion there is overwhelmingly looking to NATO/West for its inspiration. So, bro., it’s never quite ‘that simple’. Human affairs never are.😉
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The truth of this whole thing is rather simple: Zelensky is a Western stooge fronting a proxy war for the West. He is a CIA-installed puppet there to act as a buffer to Putin’s expansionist intentions. This war all along has been about America and the West goading Putin to hit Ukraine, which he duly did. All that said, my bottom line here is simple: if a majority of Ukrainians want nothing to do with Putin and are looking West, not East, then this majority opinion should be honoured in the existence of a sovereign, independent, self-governing Ukraine. Now, because Russian/Soviet and Ukrainian history are so intertwined down the centuries, this was never going to be easy as there does appear to be a significant minority of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine who look to Moscow more than Kiev. My guess is that if Putin could get away with holding Crimea, and the Donbas area and its environs, he would walk away tomorrow. However, this would be very dangerous on Ukraine’s part to concede these things, as it sends the wrong message that if Russia chooses to attack its neighbours it gets a few prizes, albeit not the big prize of Ukraine in toto, simply because the wellspring of opinion there is overwhelmingly looking to NATO/West for its inspiration.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Always mistrusted overtly ‘political’ comedy of any stripe. Never understood this human compulsion many seem to have to put all their political eggs into a single basket. When I assess my views on each given topic I find I am ‘liberal’ in some, ‘green’ in others, ‘conservative’ in more and ‘socialist’ in a few. The rest I haven’t made my mind up yet. Blake’s dictum I always have in mind here when it comes to these things which, for me, are under constant review: The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind. Or even better, this from Emerson, which captures perfectly the predicament of those toeing a party line, come what may: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood. Or this from the glorious Whitman: Do I contradict myself?/Very well then I contradict myself/I am large, I contain multitudes.) To bind yourself to ideas one day, and then to be doomed to defend them come what may, is not worthy of the thinking human being.😳
1
-
Always mistrusted overtly ‘political’ comedy of any stripe. Never understood this human compulsion many seem to have to put all their political eggs into a single basket. When I assess my views on each given topic I find I am ‘liberal’ in some, ‘green’ in others, ‘conservative’ in more and ‘socialist’ in a few. The rest I haven’t made my mind up yet. Blake’s dictum I always have in mind here when it comes to these things which, for me, are under constant review: The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind. Or even better, this from Emerson, which captures perfectly the predicament of those toeing a party line, come what may: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood. Or this from the glorious Whitman: Do I contradict myself?/Very well then I contradict myself/I am large, I contain multitudes.) To bind yourself to ideas one day, and then to be doomed to defend them come what may, is not worthy of the thinking human being.😳
1
-
He’s like an ersatz Frankie Boyle; aiming too hard for the shock tactics, and landing like a damp squib. He reminds me of a 16 year old who’s ditched his Gameboy for 5 minutes and been let out to mix it with the adults for an evening. Proof that he’s a talentless non-entity, if that were needed, are his cringeworthy , unfunny, flat appearances on GB News where he appears as nothing so much as the pub bore droning on in a deeply witless manner. My theory about Kearse is that he’s taken in a large swathe of his fan base with his accent. Non-Scots hear him and think, this sounds Boylesque and blunt enough to give it whirl. As a Scot, I can tell you this guy wouldn’t get ranked in a ‘So You Think You’re Funny’ contest in most small towns up here. His fateful flaw is, scriptless, he’s witless, and his hit-rate with a script is lower than his granny’s fanny. Final point: he’s fake. Don’t you gullibles believe the right-wing, anti-woke sentiment he ostensibly betrays. He’s all over the place, politically, as witnessed by his ‘hilariously’ ambiguous out-of-his-depth interviews all over this platform. So there you have it: Leo Kearse; a Frankie Boyle wannabe, pretending he’s something he’s not in the dishonest attempt at a few cheap laughs with blunt, unsubtle humour my wee brother and his mates come up with in the park every weekend. Keep believing, suckers!🥸
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Always mistrusted overtly ‘political’ comedy of any stripe. Never understood this human compulsion many seem to have to put all their political eggs into a single basket. When I assess my views on each given topic I find I am ‘liberal’ in some, ‘green’ in others, ‘conservative’ in more and ‘socialist’ in a few. The rest I haven’t made my mind up yet. Blake’s dictum I always have in mind here when it comes to these things which, for me, are under constant review: The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind. Or even better, this from Emerson: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood. Or this from the glorious Whitman: Do I contradict myself?/Very well then I contradict myself/I am large, I contain multitudes.) To bind yourself to ideas one day, and then to be doomed to defend them come what may, is not worthy of the thinking human being.😳
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Always mistrusted overtly ‘political’ comedy of any stripe. Never understood this human compulsion many seem to have to put all their political eggs into a single basket. When I assess my views on each given topic I find I am ‘liberal’ in some, ‘green’ in others, ‘conservative’ in more and ‘socialist’ in a few. The rest I haven’t made my mind up yet. Blake’s dictum I always have in mind here when it comes to these things which, for me, are under constant review: The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind. Or even better, this from Emerson, which captures perfectly the predicament of those toeing a party line, come what may: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood. Or this from the glorious Whitman: Do I contradict myself?/Very well then I contradict myself/I am large, I contain multitudes.) To bind yourself to ideas one day, and then to be doomed to defend them come what may, is not worthy of the thinking human being.😳
1
-
1
-
🛸 We need to get this clear: there is absolutely no properly credible evidence for ‘alien visitation’ to planet Earth. All of it, all of it is circumstantial, at best. Vague stuff seen in the sky? Well, to make the dramatic leap that this is alien sh*t from light years away would have William of Ockham up in arms. For me, this thing is rather simple: given the size of the Universe, that is, given that our Universe contains at least 70 septillion stars, 7 followed by 23 zeros, and so astronomers estimate there exist roughly 10,000 stars for each grain of sand on Earth, then it’s natural to assume there is life out there, and ‘not as we know it, Jim'. However, on current evidence, I’m not buying the idea that we have been/are being visited. I work on evidence. Hitherto, this evidence has been much too weak for the assertion that the aliens are here. 👽
1
-
Yeah, but our furthest out object, Voyager 1, is ‘only’ currently 14 billion miles away from Earth having been launched in 1977, whereas Proxima Centauri, our nearest star, is 4.22 light years away, or in other words, using current technology, what would take us 6,300 years to reach. This sheer scale of the Universe, for me, makes it nigh-on impossible that we have been visited by extraterrestrial beings or crafts. However, given the 200 billion trillion stars in the known Universe, I don’t for one moment, simply on the balance of statistical probability, doubt that they are ‘out there’; just not ‘in here’.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah, but our furthest out object, Voyager 1, is ‘only’ currently 14 billion miles away from Earth having been launched in 1977, whereas Proxima Centauri, our nearest star, is 4.22 light years away, or in other words, using current technology, what would take us 6,300 years to reach. This sheer scale of the Universe, for me, makes it nigh-on impossible that we have been visited by extraterrestrial beings or crafts. However, given the 200 billion trillion stars in the known Universe, I don’t for one moment, simply on the balance of statistical probability, doubt that they are ‘out there’; just not ‘in here’.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It is my contention that a large part of the anti-Gypsy animus is twofold: 1. Many people are simply jealous that Gypsies are mobile and not tied-down to the mortgage and 2.4 kids. (Although, the kids thing for Gypsies is usually 5.4!) 2. People are, fundamentally, snobs. I don’t care who you are, unless you’re Jesus, we all compare and judge ourselves and others, depending on where we sit on the social hierarchy. It’s my experience that many (most?) people who have a beef with Gypsies, are people who perceive themselves, rightly or wrongly, as not very far from Gypsies in the social hierarchy. This is just anecdotal, but I’m more than sure there is a grain of truth to this. People who moan about Gypsies, as a rule, don’t appear to harbour the same disdain for, say, Tarquin, living in an inherited pile down the road. No, they go for those for whom they might think they have just a little power over, rightly or wrongly.🐎
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The trouble humanity has, and has always had, is one of self-definition. Before ‘human being’, first and foremost, we seem to want to put this or that random accident of birth, or this or that imagined daddy in the sky. Individually, this is not an issue. However, when we band together with others on the basis of random accidents of birth and imagined daddies in the sky, the trouble starts. Nietzsche looked at this in the eye and called it: In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. With an outlier like Putin, we need to develop a workable system of removing such dictators from positions of power. In the kindergarten, the staff don’t allow a single bully to ride roughshod over others as whim dictates. Why, then, do we allow this as adults? 👀
1
-
1
-
1
-
We should try to understand what’s going on here, instead of just calling the shots for one side or the other. Given that America and her partners have the most egregious record of meddling in the affairs of other sovereign territories, regardless of whether these territories wanted this or not, we cannot be surprised if Putin/Russia moves on a neighbouring country giving strong signals it wants to ally itself with the West and not Russia. Our double standards here are staggering. As far as I can see, Putin is only doing what the West has done for the past 250 years and more. If Putin agreed a deal with Canada and/or Mexico to install weapons on their soil directly targeting America, I doubt very much that America wouldn’t act, and very probably violently, based on its past record. Therefore, why are we surprised when Putin does what most every other place on this planet would’ve done, given what was transpiring in Ukraine and their direction facing West: that is, acting in his own perceived self-interest? And particularly when he sees Ukraine as a kind of renegade cousin who has spurned motherland Russia. It goes without saying that what Putin is doing is wrong, but it’s understandable, even if you are not Putin.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eeboyaker I’m still not sure what you’re getting at. What is NATO’s endgame? You need to spell this out. Yes, but the majority of Ukrainians look West. Some 69% of Ukrainians want to join NATO, according to a June 2017 poll by the Democratic Initiatives Foundation, compared to 28% support in 2012 when Yanukovych was in power. Have you not considered this? We don’t even apply sanctions? You seem to be suggesting we just turn a blind eye and let Putin massacre a nation in plain sight. And then turn his attention elsewhere. The Baltic states? Poland? 👀 I’d like to politely ask you something else: do you have any personal stake in this? Of course, you can refuse to answer this, but you appear very anti-NATO, and if not exactly pro-Putin, you at least are happy fellow human beings look on and watch fellow human beings be annihilated. 🧐As I say, I don’t defend the west’s record of meddling in the affairs of democratically elected regimes, but on a human level I want to help stop Putin from his sanguinary murdering.👀 Leaving the geopolitics out of this, for me, the basic fact pertains: if a self-determining majority want something, and Ukrainians on a majority appear to want to look west, then that’s the bottom line, for me. Regardless of the overthrow in 2012, which I’m not defending, one needs to adhere to the democratic will of the people here. Don’t you agree?🧐 Ukrainian comedian Volodymyr Zelensky has scored a landslide victory in the country's presidential election. With nearly all ballots counted in the run-off vote, Mr Zelensky had taken more than 73% with incumbent Petro Poroshenko trailing far behind on 24%. I thought you said he was installed by the west?🧐Even more confused.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eeboyaker I would also add this, it’s not really the point in terms of self-determination. If a sovereign nation, through the democratically-expressed will of the people, want to be part of NATO, and NATO wants them in the gang, so to speak, then this should be honoured. I do feel NATO has far more to fear from a Putin-lead Russia than Russia has to fear from NATO. As far as I’m aware the treaty has been invoked only once in NATO history: by the United States after the September 11 attacks in 2001. The invocation was confirmed on 4 October 2001, when NATO determined that the attacks were indeed eligible under the terms of the North Atlantic Treaty. It’s just tough luck if Russia can’t handle the democratic will of another sovereign nation which happens to sit on its doorstep. If a family move in next door to me and I take a dislike to them, then I have no right in interfering just on the basis of this. This should be self-evident. I would also add here, I don’t have any figures to quote you but I’m willing to bet a good majority of ordinary Russians (and especially the under-35s), are not in favour of this war, seeing Putin, rightly in my opinion, as an old Cold War relic getting his belated revenge for losing that particular battle.👀
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I agree. The trouble humanity has, and has always had, is one of self-definition. Before ‘human being’, first and foremost, we seem to want to put this or that random accident of birth, or this or that imagined daddy in the sky. Individually, this is not an issue. However, when we band together with others on the basis of random accidents of birth and imagined daddies in the sky, the trouble starts. Nietzsche looked at this in the eye and called it: In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. With an outlier like Putin, we need to develop a workable system of removing such dictators from positions of power. In the kindergarten, the staff don’t allow a single bully to ride roughshod over others as whim dictates. Why, then, do we allow this as adults? 👀
1
-
1
-
This came through on the wires from Kepler- 452b. I thought I’d pass it on.
“The trouble humanity has, and has always had, is one of self-definition. Before ‘human being’, first and foremost, you seem to want to put this or that random accident of birth, or this or that imagined daddy in the sky. Individually, this is not an issue. However, when you band together with others on the basis of random accidents of birth and imagined daddies in the sky, the trouble starts. One of your wise ones, Nietzsche, looked at this in the eye and called it: In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. With an outlier like Putin, you need to develop a workable system of removing such dictators from positions of power. In the kindergarten, the staff don’t allow a single bully to ride roughshod over others as whim dictates. Why, then, do you allow this as adults?”👀
1
-
This came through on the wires from Kepler- 452b. I thought I’d pass it on.
“The trouble humanity has, and has always had, is one of self-definition. Before ‘human being’, first and foremost, you seem to want to put this or that random accident of birth, or this or that imagined daddy in the sky. Individually, this is not an issue. However, when you band together with others on the basis of random accidents of birth and imagined daddies in the sky, the trouble starts. One of your wise ones, Nietzsche, looked at this in the eye and called it: In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. With an outlier like Putin, you need to develop a workable system of removing such dictators from positions of power. In the kindergarten, the staff don’t allow a single bully to ride roughshod over others as whim dictates. Why, then, do you allow this as adults?”👀
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah, but really ? The ‘enemy’? A fellow human being? The enemy? On what basis? An accident of birth? Well, how silly, for the last time I looked we were all born on the same 3rd rock from the sun. A different God? Really? Last time I checked all Gods were just inventions of human beings afraid to die. Understandable, but inexcusable if you are going to use this figment of your imagination as a pretext to exterminate another human being. Here’s how I see it: we are far too primitive as a species. After 300,000 odd years of evolution we are still looking at another person and seeing them as so different we are willing to destroy them. I call that primitive. I call that not worthy of the thinking human being. I call that behaving as a child in the playground might behave (an insult to children in the playground). We are better than this. We have the potential to be so much better. We are betraying a primitive, unthinking way of being that is just not going to be conducive to our medium to long-term survival as a species. We seem to have a death wish. It doesn’t have to be like this. How? Quite simply, you expand your terms of self-definition. So, instead of a random, arbitrary accident of birth you are, first and foremost, a human. So, instead of believing in an unverified, unverifiable sky God you are, first and foremost, a human. You are bigger than you think. Boundaries and borders based on arbitrary accidents of birth are boring. They are also deadly. If we are to get out of here alive (and this is very much in the balance, given the power we have harnessed to mutually self-destruct), then each and every one of us has to do something that is not that difficult: be a human being. 🧐
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
33:25 While much of what Phillips says makes sense, she’s completely wrong with her ‘most Muslim countries ban the burka’.
There are currently 16 states that have banned the burqa and niqab, both Muslim-majority countries and non-Muslim countries, including Tunisia, Austria, Denmark, France, Belgium, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Gabon, the Netherlands, China, Morocco, Sri Lanka and Switzerland.
4 Muslim countries have banned the burka.
35:25 Edit: One other thing; the Costa Brava is on the north coast of Spain, not the southern. I think she’s confusing her Costa Brava with her Costa Blanca!
1
-
If I had to pick one writer who shaped my thinking more than any other it would be Emerson, along with his compadres, Whitman and Thoreau. He’s so eminently quotable and here are my Top 10 favourites of his:
1. Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.
2. Make your own Bible. Select and collect all the words and sentences that in all your readings have been to you like the blast of a trumpet.
3. It is easy in the world to live after the world's opinion; it is easy in solitude to live after our own; but the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude.
4. Once you make a decision, the Universe conspires to make it happen
5. Though we travel the world over to find the beautiful, we must carry it with us, or we find it not.
6. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.
7. You become what you think about all day long.
8. The good news is that the moment you decide that what you know is more important than what you have been taught to believe, you will have shifted gears in your quest for abundance. Success comes from within, not from without.
9. Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string.
10. There is a time in every man's education when he arrives at the conviction that envy is ignorance; that imitation is suicide; that he must take himself for better, for worse, as his portion; that though the wide universe is full of good, no kernel of nourishing corn can come to him but through his toil bestowed on that plot of ground which is given to him to till. The power which resides in him is new in nature, and none but he knows what that is which he can do, nor does he know until he has tried.
Like the stars ✨ in the firmament there are countless others, but perhaps I should end with this, thereby not taking Emerson’s advice: I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.
1
-
Jordan Peterson’s 12 rules for life - an appraisal.
Stand up straight with your shoulders straight. Unless you’re a peeping Tom and need to keep below that wall, otherwise that gorgeous, undressing next-door neighbour may spot you.
Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping. In other words, pick up your own smelly socks, don’t litter, and make your own fucking bed!
Befriend people who want the best for you. Well, this rests on your judgement of others’ character. If that’s shit, you’re fucked.
Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not the useless person you are today. This one totally contradicts the whole idea of self-improvement, for if I’m more useless today than I was yesterday, why am I even trying to self-improve?!
Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them. Well, this assumes that you’re such an insane parental control freak with such a fascistic sense of keeping another in order that it’s not even worth considering, if only to save your own soul. Besides, kids need to make their own mistakes, so tough-titty if the parents can’t take this.
Set your house in order before criticising the world. Well, if you’re a saint, perhaps. If you’re a messy flesh and blood human being then criticising the world is what gets most of us through the day, if the drugs aren’t working.
Pursue what is meaningful, not what is expedient. Yeah, but that makes the enormous, unfounded assumption that any of this means anything whatsoever.
Tell the truth, or at least don’t lie. I’m sorry, but that time my mother caught my porn stash under the bed, I had to lie and pin it on my twin brother, Tommy. Sometimes, lying just is the best policy and those who say otherwise are just liars.
Assume the person you are listening to knows something you don’t. Ok. But this one falls down when it comes to my bank PIN number.
Be precise in your speech. What ‘precise’ in one’s speech like Mr Jordan ‘why use 1 word when 21 will do?’ Peterson? Give me the conciseness of a Sam Harris any day. I’m sure Adam Sandler will concur.
Do not bother children while they are skateboarding. Unless, that is, they are skateboarding all over your prize flowerbeds; then you can not only ‘bother’ them, but collar them and let them feel your hot garlicky breath on their cheeks.
Pet a cat when you encounter one in the street. Unless, that is, the cat is frothing alarmingly at the mouth.
Now where’s my publishing deal?😳
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As a Brit, I have no issue with the vast majority of immigrants to the UK and, more widely, Europe. However, there is far too much of it. Also, there is one particular organised religion on this planet right now that seems to think it’s uncriticisable, untouchable and if anyone does dare stick their head above the parapet then the consequences could be rather dire. Salman Rushdie proves this. I love how Islam, of all the organised religions currently on our planet, is the one that demands most respect (on pain of possible death) for its values on one hand yet is least likely to give that respect the other way for others’ values. When you come to my house, you
play by my rules and not the rules of the shithole, benighted country you left behind. This is the problem: the more radical of the Muslims literally want to turn the country to which they arrive into the hellish image of the dump they fled.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Donovan9000 Not really, tbh. You might be reading too much into it. Perhaps you could argue that, but even if that were the case I’m not sure it was deliberately/consciously done. However, I would also say, why would it be an automatic insult if we are to believe these lizard things exist? (They don’t, of course, but for the sake of argument.) We are told that these lizard things are clever, wise, more advanced than humans, therefore for another human to be linked with them (black, white, yellow, brown, any human, essentially), then this could be read as a compliment and not an insult.🤔 No?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Not quite true about the left having a monopoly on ‘tribalism’. To take a salient contemporary example du jour, the ‘tribe’ who broadly and specifically subscribe to the ideas of Jordan Peterson are some of the most egregiously partisan and reflexively self-defensive individuals I think may have ever encountered. I say this as one neither particularly left, not particularly right, and can therefore see this relatively perspicaciously. I have been in debates apropos Peterson’s notions, and any even slight criticism I might raise vis-a-vis his thinking is not infrequently met with an invidious bile the like of which I have rarely met with from another, left, centre or right. I’m puzzled by the phenomenon, and can only put it down to the intrinsically personal manner Peterson’s followers feel about their man. I think he has one or two good ideas, but nothing really which hasn’t been said before and said better (eg. RW Emerson’s Self-Reliance philosophy), but if I dare put my head above the parapet and suggest that Peterson’s ideas, say concerning God/Jesus are a tad flaky and jejune, then it’s blown off in a firestorm of vitriol. So while I agree that the entrenched ideological left do get quite defensive and oftentimes personal in their promulgation of their ideas, the right is certainly not immune from this nasty infection either.😳
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MsMounen Of course I have connections. I have a close family and extended family and friends. I don’t feel this need to ‘belong’ as you seem to, and particularly to belong to the random people surrounding me in the part of the world I was born and raised. Why on Earth are you going to limit yourself to a sense of ‘belonging’ and ‘connection’ to the tiny bit of the world you were randomly born into? Huh? Surely it’s better to expand your sense of who you are to encompass as many fellow human beings as possible? No? Some of my family have lived for generations in the same place, while others have moved around, lived in other countries, learned other languages, as have I, and we have thereby refused to be tied to this or that small patch we happened to have been randomly, arbitrarily born on. You seem to be suggesting that we can only feel ‘belonging’ and ‘connection’ with those who happen to come from where we happened to originate from. How sad. How bizarre. How dangerous. I feel no need to limit my connections to those who happen to share my language or happen to originate from my small spot on this Earth. I speak 4 languages based on my life experience and travels on this fascinating planet. Can’t you see that the reason for much of humanity’s troubles issues from limiting ourselves to those we happen to have been born among? Can’t you see that the trouble starts when we start identifying with this or that person to the exclusion of someone else? Have you not looked at our history recently? Currently, in Russia and Ukraine we have human beings about to annihilate each other on an industrial scale, and for what? Why? I would suggest that Ukrainians and Russians have far more in common than they don’t. The only, I repeat, the only reason that they are about to mutually massacre one another is quite simple: they have been brainwashed into believing they have more differences than similarities. They have been taught to hate such that they are prepared to murder one another without scruple. Does a Russian child hate a Ukrainian child? Of course not. Why? They haven’t been indoctrinated into the delusions of adults that say we have more differences than similarities compared to the next person. I find it patronising and insulting and laughable that you suggest I cannot have a sense of belonging just because I see nationalism/patriotism as irrational, pointless, but more importantly, very very dangerous. I belong to the Earth. And the sun. And the stars. I identify with every single human being ever born and refuse to abase myself to a petty accident of birth. You need to think about this. As to ‘spiritual beliefs’, well, I’m not a fan of organised religion, as I see it, along with nationalism/patriotism, as the greatest disaster our species ever invented. Yet, this notwithstanding, I am spiritual in my own way. The difference with me, and it’s the vital difference, is that I am not prepared to kill another for my ideas. I’m not prepared to harm a fellow human being on the basis of invented, abstract nothings, as I see them. ‘Creeds and schools in abeyance’ is the only creed I live by, along with a self-definition as large as I can encompass. 😉
1
-
@MsMounen I will give you this one concession, as I like you. In your case, I’m deducing it’s a benevolent patriotism you feel linked to upbringing etc. That’s fine (as long as it remains at the benign, benevolent level), as it’s linked to your history and friends and family and experiences. I get that. All I am saying is quite simple: don’t define yourself on an accident of birth such that you are willing to die for this accident of birth. With you, I hope, I don’t feel you would descend to this obvious madness. But when patriotism and nationalism get blurred, then human beings all too often get violent and tribal and hunkered down in their camps purely based on a random, arbitrary accident of birth. The only way out of this is to expand your self-definition. For example, my first and primary definition is ‘human being’. I’m not willing to define myself as less than this, if it means excluding others. As a result I’m not going to get violent with another over an arbitrary accident of birth or a random pie-in-the-sky daddy. Humanity needs to learn to do this if we are to have any chance of getting out of here alive. ☀️
1
-
@MsMounen
Yeah, and your random, arbitrary, meaningless accident of birth makes you ‘belong’ to this island. Really? Think about this better. You could have been born anywhere. Stop taking an unearned ‘pride’, a weird unearned credit in a complete accident of birth. If you had been born in France you would, no doubt, be trumpeting your ‘Frenchness’ at me. If you had been born in China you would, no doubt, be championing the greatness of China. If you had been born in La La Land, you would be going all lala over La La Land? Do you not see this? Do you not see that nationalism, along with organised religion, has been the most egregious baleful blight on our planet? Can you not see that? Are you that primitive that just because your mother happened to plop you out somewhere, and not elsewhere, that you automatically take pride in that random place she plopped you out? Really? Last time I checked, I thought people took pride in their self-driven achievements. Learning a new language, learning a musical instrument, raising a happy, healthy family, for example, are all worthy of your pride. But an accident of birth? Have you not seen the news today? People about to kill one another over an accident of birth. Think about this and get back to me with a better answer as I feel you might be better than this.😳
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hooligan9794 Just be proud of your self-motivated achievements, pal. Learning a language, learning a musical instrument, raising a happy family, that sort of thing. After organised religion, national pride has been the most baleful blight on the human species. If you’ve actively contributed to something, then, if you want to, take ‘pride’ in that. Don’t take unearned pride, unearned credit in the random, arbitrary event of your mother plopping you out here and not there. I would argue, don’t even fall into the trap of defining anything at a national level. It’s too dangerous and humans cannot be trusted at this stage in our evolution. I try, as far as possible, to define myself in the widest, largest terms possible, and in this way I don’t get ‘offended’ when someone disses my place of birth, or when someone mocks my (non)-belief, in a deity. Human beings are still far, far too tribal, alas.🧐
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@UCRR4-l1w4S7eFEwZiS5AAIA He’s the guy people who don’t read go to. The God thing? To me, he’s just added that garbage to add a little mystique, a little something to sell him to a few more unthinking, gullible fuctards. On Monday he’s an atheist. ‘Ah, but most North Americans believe in a deity; I’ve missed a trick here. God exists! Eureka! But only on my staggeringly arrogant terms: he/she/it/whatever the fucking pronoun is, exists because I, Jordan Peterson, acts as if he/she/it/whatever the fucking pronoun is exists.’ On Tuesday he’s a believer. He’s egregiously nauseating in his self-righteous proclamations. I repeat, when he talks of something as basic and obvious to every human being as ‘equality of opportunity’, then of course, I agree. Why wouldn’t you? It’s obvious. And so is Peterson.🤓
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The greatest problem humanity faces, and has always faced, is the one of ‘taking offence’. Note ‘taking’. No one can be offended against their will. You are fully complicit in the act of ‘being offended’. The only long-term solution to this is obvious. Train oneself to not be offended. By anything. Don’t hitch yourself so tightly to this or that identity (family, tribe, race, nation, religion, sex, sports team etc) such that when someone else says something, anything, about the aforementioned it will be impossible for you to take offence, quite simply as you have refused to subsume so much of your identity in the perceived target another attacks.🤓
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Always mistrusted overtly ‘political’ comedy of any stripe. Never understood this human compulsion many seem to have to put all their political eggs into a single basket. When I assess my views on each given topic I find I am ‘liberal’ in some, ‘green’ in others, ‘conservative’ in more and ‘socialist’ in a few. The rest I haven’t made my mind up yet. Blake’s dictum I always have in mind here when it comes to these things which, for me, are under constant review: The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind. Or even better, this from Emerson: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood. Or this from the glorious Whitman: Do I contradict myself?/Very well then I contradict myself/I am large, I contain multitudes.) To bind yourself to ideas one day, and then to be doomed to defend them come what may, is not worthy of the thinking human being.😳
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@55:16 Well, factually just over 1,000. Not to be downplayed at all but not ‘several thousand’. The ‘several thousand’ actually applied to the other side: There were 138 suicide attacks and 1,038 Israelis killed from September 28, 2000 through February 8, 2005, according to data of the Shin Bet security service; and 3,189 Palestinians killed, according to data of the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem. In addition, 4,100 Palestinian homes were demolished and some 6,000 Palestinians arrested. 🧐
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The greatest problem humanity faces, and has always faced, is the one of ‘taking offence’. Note ‘taking’. No one can be offended against their will. You are fully complicit in the act of ‘being offended’. The only long-term solution to this is obvious. Train oneself to not be offended. By anything. Don’t hitch yourself so tightly to this or that identity (family, tribe, nation, religion, sex, sports team etc) such that when someone else says something, anything, about the aforementioned it will be impossible for you to take offence, quite simply as you have refused to subsume so much of your identity in the perceived target another attacks.🤓
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This came through on the wires from Kepler- 452b. I thought I’d pass it on.
“The trouble humanity has, and has always had, is one of self-definition. Before ‘human being’, first and foremost, you seem to want to put this or that random accident of birth, or this or that imagined daddy in the sky. Individually, this is not an issue. However, when you band together with others on the basis of random accidents of birth and imagined daddies in the sky, the trouble starts. One of your wise ones, Nietzsche, looked at this in the eye and called it: In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. With an outlier like Putin, you need to develop a workable system of removing such dictators from positions of power. In the kindergarten, the staff don’t allow a single bully to ride roughshod over others as whim dictates. Why, then, do you allow this as adults?”👽
1
-
Yeah, but our furthest out object, Voyager 1, is ‘only’ currently 14 billion miles away from Earth having been launched in 1977, whereas Proxima Centauri, our nearest star, is 4.22 light years away, or in other words, using current technology, what would take us 6,300 years to reach. This sheer scale of the Universe, for me, makes it nigh-on impossible that we have been visited by extraterrestrial beings or crafts. However, given the 200 billion trillion stars in the known Universe, I don’t for one moment, simply on the balance of statistical probability, doubt that they are ‘out there’; just not ‘in here’.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
🛸 We need to get this clear: there is absolutely no properly credible evidence for ‘alien visitation’ to planet Earth. All of it, all of it is circumstantial, at best. Vague stuff seen in the sky? Well, to make the dramatic leap that this is alien sh*t from light years away would have William of Ockham up in arms. For me, this thing is rather simple: given the size of the Universe, that is, given that our Universe contains at least 70 septillion stars, 7 followed by 23 zeros, and so astronomers estimate there exist roughly 10,000 stars for each grain of sand on Earth, then it’s natural to assume there is life out there, and ‘not as we know it, Jim'. However, on current evidence, I’m not buying the idea that we have been/are being visited. I work on evidence. Hitherto, this evidence has been much too weak for the assertion that the aliens are here. 👽
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stevemorse108 If you ‘attach little importance’ to what you wear, why did you need to point it out as an initial comment on Peterson? This implies you do attach importance to clothes. Or are you genuinely saying that you don’t care how you appear to yourself and others, but you do care about how others appear to you and everyone else? I’m confused. Can I suggest what I think is going on here and you can correct me if I’m wrong. I think you’re relieved that Peterson conforms in some way to your model of a ‘well-dressed’ man, however subjectively defined. You are glad that someone you dig in many ways, I would guess, is someone you can also dig on the sartorial level also. The mere fact of your mention of high-cost shoes when I challenged your opinion Peterson was well-dressed, suggests that like most other people you do care about personal appearance, in others and in yourself, too, I bet. This would only be natural, for as Shakespeare rightly said: the apparel oft proclaims the man. So, in conclusion, it seems to me our only bone of contention is, is Peterson well-dressed in this video? Your subjectivity says yes, mine says no. 🥸
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This, sadly, reminds me of the lengths we go to, as humans, to save, say, a cat up a tree, or a semi-beached whale, only this time we are helping one of our own. (P.s. We should be saving the trapped cat or the beached whale, but, surely, it’s incumbent on us to help our own, perhaps as a matter of priority.) Speciesist? Maybe.
1
-
Yeah, but our furthest out object, Voyager 1, is ‘only’ currently 14 billion miles away from Earth having been launched in 1977, whereas Proxima Centauri, our nearest star, is 4.22 light years away, or in other words, using current technology, what would take us 6,300 years to reach. This sheer scale of the Universe, for me, makes it nigh-on impossible that we have been visited by extraterrestrial beings or crafts. However, given the 200 billion trillion stars in the known Universe, I don’t for one moment, simply on the balance of statistical probability, doubt that they are ‘out there’; just not ‘in here’.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stevehiggins1263 Er, ok. You picked the ‘better’ Bible values, I suppose. Overall though, I am with Richard Dawkins: The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. 👍
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jordan Peterson‘s 12 more (God help us all!) rules for life - an appraisal.
Do not carelessly denigrate social institutions or creative achievement. Oh man. Come on! If I can’t slag off the mother-in-law you’ve thereby instantly removed 5% of my reason for getting up in the morning. Similarly, if I see a post-post-modern, abstract-expressionist post-impressionist painting in a gallery I reserve the right to draw a cock and balls over it. I want my artists figurative. Or at the very least, Italian.
Imagine who you could be and then aim single-mindedly at that. Hmm … I’m imagining I could be Jordan Peterson. Oh, wait. The world isn’t big enough to contain TWO identical egos that large!
Do not hide unwanted things in the fog. Especially if John Carpenter is lurking somewhere in that fog.
Notice that opportunity lurks where responsibility has been abdicated. Ok, I think that makes sense. Are you saying that if I refuse to wash the dishes and decline to put the garbage out I’m on a blow-job promise that self same evening? Sounds good to me!
Do not do what you hate. Yay! Jordan Peterson himself is telling me I don’t have to read a single thing he ever writes ever again! Thanks Jordy. 🙏
Abandon ideology. What, abandon the ‘ideology’ of condensing the incredible complexity of human life and existence into 12 cookie-cutter platitudes I once read in a bunch of fortune cookies? That ideology?
Work as hard as you possibly can on at least one thing and see what happens. Well, since the age of about 13 I’ve been actively fulfilling this injunction and it’s nearly fallen off.😳
Try to make one room in your home as beautiful as possible. Can we agree on a corner of one room? A whole room just sounds extravagant and, frankly, a waste of my time when I’ve got rule 7 to be getting on with.😳
If old memories still upset you, write them down carefully and completely. Yes, they do. However, not sure writing them down will help. Can I not just do the more obvious, sensible thing and, er, like, well, forget them?
Plan and work diligently to maintain the romance in your relationship. Yes, I buy my dick flowers at least every other Friday.
Do not allow yourself to become resentful, deceitful, or arrogant. Ha! Ya got me. While I resent no one but the milk-man who ran away with the wife back in 1987 (I’m still working through it), and I have deceived no one since that time I pretended I was Jesus at a convention of atheist/agnostics, the ‘arrogant’ one still niggles. Yes, I have to admit that when in an almighty pickle, I do sometimes think: ‘What would Donald Lamont do?’ Sorry.
Be grateful in spite of your suffering. Well, one of my avatars kinda said this about 2,600 years before Saint Jordan palmed it off as one of his own. But hey! plagiarism never hurt anybody when you’re trying to fool most of the people most of the time!😁
Note: Jordan Peterson will publish 12 more rules for life when he’s spent all the money he got from gullible fools buying the first 24. 🤔
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shootingsportstransparency7461 Full disclosure: I’m agnostic, apolitical and anational. I just don’t want to be incinerated in a thermonuclear annihilation scenario, that’s all. But this needs to be said, if we are to have any understanding as to what is going on here: Putin is not mad; rather, he considers NATO/USA/West an encroaching mortal threat, and I think he has a point. It’s too easy to label him as Vlad the Mad, the unhinged, sexually repressed freak (he’s that, all right - if he just came out he could save us a whole lotta trouble here), but he’s simply acting according to his vision of the world. Where I and Vlad part company, is where he invades self-governing, sovereign territories, no matter how much he may think he has a claim on them, like in some geopolitical version of a child-custody battle. However, it’s vitally important we don’t paint Putin as this non-human ‘monster’; he’s far from that.😳
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah, but our furthest out object, Voyager 1, is ‘only’ currently 14 billion miles away from Earth having been launched in 1977, whereas Proxima Centauri, our nearest star, is 4.22 light years away, or in other words, using current technology, what would take us 6,300 years to reach. This sheer scale of the Universe, for me, makes it nigh-on impossible that we have been visited by extraterrestrial beings or crafts. However, given the 200 billion trillion stars in the known Universe, I don’t for one moment, simply on the balance of statistical probability, doubt that they are ‘out there’; just not ‘in here’. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LisaAnn777 Yeah, all very sweet, but Jimbo has still refused to supply one iota of evidence regarding his claims. I don’t work on people telling me random stuff and simply swallowing it whole like some gullible goon. I work on evidence. If I told Jimbo, or you, or anyone else, that every second Tuesday, my granny Ethel sprouts wings and flies to the moon and back (without toilet breaks), naturally, I wouldn’t necessarily ask you to take my word for this and would want you, if you had any scintilla of a critical faculty remaining, to ask me for more verification than simply my word for this. Perhaps you might ask for some photos my granny took of the moon’s surface, or a piece of rock from said same surface. Likewise, when random people tell me random stuff about ‘aliens’ being amongst us, I kinda want more verification than just the basic word of someone I don’t know from Adam. I hope you see where I’m coming from here, and that your education can understand the very basic points I’m making.
1
-
Incidentally, if Jim Holt is Jim Holt, the science writer, and for the purposes of this I shall assume he is (for the love of science, say it’s not him!), then to assert: The E.T.s (many different races, with different agendas) have already been here for a long time, millions and millions of them have even been born among humans , without doing his due scientific diligence and supplying the corroborating evidence which can be openly assessed and openly peer-reviewed, then he is doing the whole scientific enterprise a disservice. Now, there are 200 billion trillion stars out there. Is there extraterrestrial life out there? On balance of probabilities, almost certainly. Is that extraterrestrial life here? Not a shred of evidence. Assertions, like a child in the playground screaming, ‘But my daddy is better than your daddy!’, will not do. It’s my contention that a huge part of the alien visitation theory, is simply lost, lonely human beings who ditched their God in the 19th century because they knew they had to if they were being intellectually honest with themselves, and they took one look into the colossal abyss of space/time and blinked and they have filled the gaping vacuum with all manner of supernatural paraphernalia. The wild assertions actually betray doubt as to what is being asserted, for as Pirsig noted: You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt. Shouting from a rooftop: ‘They’re here! The aliens are here!’ doesn’t cut it in a world where some people’s critical faculties haven’t (yet) atrophied. Hamlet may have rebuked Horatio’s incredulity in strange things unseen, and I’m sure there are more things in heaven and earth than in anyone’s philosophy, but from Aristotle to Galileo to right now, the whole scientific edifice has been built upon that initial Horatian presupposition of doubt.
1
-
1
-
@tammysmart4486 Incidently, of the approximately 1,032 words I have deployed in this thread, if you only found one grammatical error on my part, then I surely deserve congratulations and not mocking by someone, I notice, who seems to have more than slight issues with correctly setting their text out on the page, as you appear to. Can I suggest to you that you simply learn how to use the space bar, as reading what you’ve written makes me somewhat dizzy! For the record, one mistake in 1,032 is an error rate of 0.1%. I call that excellent by anyone’s standards. You pitch up with your first few words and immediately one spots you have basic spacing issues. Sort this out and get back to me as I’ve just heard quite a few panes of glass smashing just as I was reading your jumpy offering.
1
-
@tammysmart4486 Well, Tammy, my opinion clearly means something to you, sweetie, as you’re trolling me and displaying an overheated hypocrisy you might wanna sort out before you accuse others. I don’t care if you are Jesus, or the ghost of Galileo, or the resurrection of Norman Bates returned to torment me as I partake of a shower, but if you claim stuff, any stuff, but particularly outlandish stuff, you need the corroborating outlandish evidence to support said stuff. If you cannot see this basic, incontrovertible fact of elementary science then I suggest your parents have been remiss in their choice of school for you. Either that, or you weren’t concentrating the day they were teaching this elementary, yes elementary, knowledge. Just for the record, I’m not a scientist. All I am is a reasonable citizen asking perfectly reasonable questions when folks like you come at me with patently unreasonable information that no one, to date, has been able to objectively corroborate. If you’re another of these ‘asserters without evidence’ people, then it’s incumbent on you to remain silent here once you have postulated your initial idea and/or experience. Yes, you may have ‘seen’ wacky lights fizzing about the sky, you may have ‘observed’ a big f*ck-off mothership at 10 paces, you may even have peered into the eyeballs of an alien, up close and personal, before they probed your nether regions, but none of this is admissible in an open forum if it’s presented without more than just your word for it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mrblonde1264 Look, Mr Blonde (Tarantino was always overrated anyway), don’t come at me with nothing but bluster, and ‘I happen to believe in this and therefore you must believe in this, too’. It doesn’t work like that. Just because I dig chocolate ice cream, I’m not forcing you to dig it, too. It seems like you are ‘forcing’ me to be believe something based on negligible evidence, to say the very least, and I refuse to do so until you can do better. You know what you remind me of? Those fanatical Christians screaming: ‘repent or die!’ I’m here to tell you, some of us have critical faculties that haven’t (yet) atrophied. Here’s what I’m gonna tell you, and you may not like it: you are screaming at me because you, yourself, seriously doubt the ‘truth’ of what you’re bellowing. Can I point you to an apposite quote which sums up this better than I can: You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt. Pirsig sums up much of the alien/extraterrestrial believers almost perfectly. In sum, if you really believed all this extraterrestrial visitation stuff you wouldn’t feel the need to force others to believe it also. I don’t work on faith; I work on evidence.
1
-
@robinmcara793 @Mr Blonde Prove it, boys. That’s all I ask. Archimedes, Euclid, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Copernicus, Faraday, Maxwell, Curie, Darwin, Rutherford, Planck, Mendel, Franklin et al: none of these people asked you to take their proposals at face value; they, to a man and woman, proved the human truth of these proposals, and asked you to ‘peer review’ their work. I have yet to see any proponent of the ‘alien visitation’ theory ask to be peer reviewed. I bet you can guess why.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@martinwebb1681 How convenient that we can’t see them. We’re expected, like gullible fools, to swallow the ‘aliens are here agenda’, yet, apparently no one has ever seen them! It’s a bit like when they told me at school, ‘God exists, but he’s quite elusive, and often away on holiday or taking extended tea-breaks.’ Here’s the deal as I see it apropos aliens: they are almost certainly ‘out there’, but there is not a scintilla of evidence that they are ‘in here’, and if you, or anyone else has that evidence, then make my day by pointing me to it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah, but our furthest out object, Voyager 1, is ‘only’ currently 14 billion miles away from Earth having been launched in 1977, whereas Proxima Centauri, our nearest star, is 4.22 light years away, or in other words, using current technology, would take us 6,300 years to reach. This sheer scale of the Universe, for me, makes it nigh-on impossible that we have been visited by extraterrestrial beings or crafts. However, given the 200 billion trillion stars in the known Universe, I don’t for one moment, simply on the balance of statistical probability, doubt that they are ‘out there’; just not ‘in here’.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@StepDub Iraq was America doing what America does since about 1776. At the time justified as being all about Iraq’s (non-existent) WMDs – or other purported goals, such as a desire to “spread democracy” or satisfy the oil or Israel lobbies; the real reason the Bush administration invaded Iraq was the same reason Truman dropped (unnecessarily) the atomic bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima: its demonstration effect. As with this latter barbaric, immoral atrocity, which was intended to send a post-WW2 message to the rest of the world (particularly the USSR) of “don’t mess with us, or else”, a quick and decisive victory in the heart of the Arab world would send a message to all countries, especially to recalcitrant regimes such as Syria, Libya, Iran, or North Korea, that American hegemony was here to stay.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nathang-en3io Well, where I live we have literally dozens of different peoples (French, Spanish, Indian, Pakistani, American, Australian, Syrian, Lebanese, Japanese, Chinese, Nigerian, Moroccan etc.) and almost to a man and a woman these people contribute and make a difference. If anything, where I’m at, it’s the native born whiteys who are the uneducated, unmotivated layabouts. Moreover, the bizarre thing is that again, almost to a man and a woman, these people speak better English than many of the natives!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mvp Roster Yeah, and if something can be done to control it (ie. not continuing to spew out millions of tons of fossil fuels), not just “unlucky”, but criminally negligent as temporary custodians of our planet. Ultimately though, we will just be shooting ourselves in the foot, as nothing we do to this planet (in the extreme long-run) will bother it. After all, there are trillions and trillions of other planets, and I think that this fact unconsciously feeds into many people’s seeming insouciance about the fate of Earth. It’s somehow disposable. In a way, it is, but if we humans bother it too much, it will just shrug us off like a bad case of fleas. We will be disposed of and Earth will spin on its merry way through the starry heavens.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Rabbit, rabbit, rabbit, rabbit, rabbit, rabbit, rabbit, rabbit, rabbit, yup yup rabbit, yup yup yup rabbit, rabbit, bunny, jabber, yup rabbit, bunny, yup yup yup rabbit, bunny, jabber, yup yup yup rabbit, bunny, jabber, yup yup bunny, jabber, rabbit 🐰 (Chas & Dave)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
🛸 We need to get this clear: there is absolutely no properly credible evidence for ‘alien visitation’ to planet Earth. All of it, all of it is circumstantial, at best. Vague stuff seen in the sky? Well, to make the dramatic leap that this is alien sh*t from light years away would have William of Ockham up in arms. For me, this thing is rather simple: given the size of the Universe, that is, given that our Universe contains at least 70 septillion stars, 7 followed by 23 zeros, and so astronomers estimate there exist roughly 10,000 stars for each grain of sand on Earth, then it’s natural to assume there is life out there, and ‘not as we know it, Jim'. However, on current evidence, I’m not buying the idea that we have been/are being visited. I work on evidence. Hitherto, this evidence has been much too weak for the assertion that the aliens are here. 👽
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The greatest problem humanity faces, and has always faced, is the one of ‘taking offence’. Note ‘taking’. No one can be offended against their will. You are fully complicit in the act of ‘being offended’. The only long-term solution to this is obvious. Train oneself to not be offended. By anything. Don’t hitch yourself so tightly to this or that identity (family, tribe, nation, religion, sex, sports team etc) such that when someone else says something, anything, about the aforementioned it will be impossible for you to take offence, quite simply as you have refused to subsume so much of your identity in the perceived target another attacks.🤓
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The greatest problem humanity faces, and has always faced, is the one of ‘taking offence’. Note ‘taking’. No one can be offended against their will. You are fully complicit in the act of ‘being offended’. The only long-term solution to this is obvious. Train oneself to not be offended. By anything. Don’t hitch yourself so tightly to this or that identity (family, tribe, nation, religion, sex, sports team etc) such that when someone else says something, anything, about the aforementioned it will be impossible for you to take offence, quite simply as you have refused to subsume so much of your identity in the perceived target another attacks.🤓
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
My main issue is not with Peterson himself (I agree with much of what he says, leaving aside the God nonsense, which he himself almost guiltily, shamefacedly promulgates when asked about), no, my main issue is with the nauseating, sycophantic fanboys (and occasional girl) who leap to even the teeniest, tiniest criticism of him and his ideas like a pack of rabid dogs for hire. It’s hilarious and sick-inducing simultaneously; almost as if they have been hypnotised into believing Peterson cannot possibly be wrong about anything , and anyone who suggests he is, must be shot-down, silenced. Ironically, the very thing they claim ‘woke’ culture does to Peterson himself. All very bizarre.😳
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This came through on the wires from Kepler- 452b. I thought I’d pass it on.
“The trouble humanity has, and has always had, is one of self-definition. Before ‘human being’, first and foremost, you seem to want to put this or that random accident of birth, or this or that imagined daddy in the sky. Individually, this is not an issue. However, when you band together with others on the basis of random accidents of birth and imagined daddies in the sky, the trouble starts. One of your wise ones, Nietzsche, looked at this in the eye and called it: In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. With an outlier like Putin, you need to develop a workable system of removing such dictators from positions of power. In the kindergarten, the staff don’t allow a single bully to ride roughshod over others as whim dictates. Why, then, do you allow this as adults?”👽
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@worldclass4508 For me, it all flows from the individual level. Yes, authoritarianism and regimes that use this are inimical, but the general culture is what allows these to breed and flourish. I’ve spent some time looking at why humans are so awful to one another and my basic answer to these issues is as follows. The greatest problem humanity faces, and has always faced, is the one of ‘taking offence’. Note ‘taking’. No one can be offended against their will. You are fully complicit in the act of ‘being offended’. The only long-term solution to this is obvious. Train oneself to not be offended. By anything. Don’t hitch yourself so tightly to this or that identity (family, tribe, nation, race, religion, sex, sports team etc) such that when someone else says something, anything, about the aforementioned it will be impossible for you to take offence, quite simply as you have refused to subsume so much of your identity in the perceived target another attacks.🤓 In sum, if everyone were to simply widen their scope of identity to encompass everyone else, then many of our troubles would be solved instantly. I used to be fairly rigidly religious, fairly nationalistic, and fairly sensitive about a few other things when someone else criticised something I identified with. I’m no longer, as I have trained myself (it’s not that difficult) to not identify with anything smaller than the human scale, thereby obviating my falling into the fatal trap of in-grouping and out-grouping. You don’t even necessarily have to like these other humans, let alone love them; you simply see them as other humans who cannot possibly offend you and therefore there is no issue. Of course, the heavy-handed, authoritarian regimes/humans are still a big problem to solve as they come blundering at you with physical force, but this training oneself to have no intrinsic beef with another person, based on sex, national pride, race, sexuality, religion etc., is something we can all do, right now. 🤓
1
-
1
-
If ever humanity needed another reminder after 300,000 years or so of just how primitive and unevolved we are in many respects it’s this crap. One primitive little man, it seems, dubiously democratically elected, rattles his sabre (calling Freud), amasses his boys and girls at the borders of another sovereign territory, and voila! My inability to understand how this happens, given that the last time I looked we are all human beings, and have far more in common fundamentally, than any differences, is palpable. Oh, well. What do they say about those who don’t learn from their history?😳
1
-
1
-
1
-
While observing the bedlam being played out daily on our screens, I couldn’t help but be struck by how eerily similar this whole farrago is to Kubrick’s Dr Strangelove , with a slight tweaking of point-of-view, and flipping of roles, in which America is Russia and Russia is America. In Kubrick’s masterpiece, American Brigadier General Jack D Ripper (Putin), has been driven insane with paranoia by the events of the Cold War. (In Putin’s case insanity and monomaniacal post-Cold War paranoia at a loss and diminution of his beloved Russia, as was USSR.) Ripper has become convinced that there is a plot by the ‘Commies’ (USA/NATO in Putin’s case) to ‘sap and contaminate our precious bodily fluids’. (In Putin’s case to sap and contaminate the minds of the Russians, and the idea of a Greater Russian Empire.) Ripper decides to take pre-emptive, first-strike unilateral action by striking the USSR. (Putin’s pre-emptive strike on Ukraine, and by extension the West in general.) The B-52s, under Ripper’s command, go in and hydrogen bomb the USSR. (Mercifully, Putin has not yet gone this far.) The US president along with his back-room staff attempt to stop the bombers from delivering their payload. (We can only pray Putin has back-room staff strong enough and prepared to step in if he tries to fulfill his nuclear threat.) Here’s the rub, however, the only way to stop the bombers in Dr Strangelove ,is a recall code which only Ripper knows. (We must pray, even the atheists/agnostics amongst us, that with Putin, it’s not only him that has access to the button.) The US government tries to capture Ripper to get the recall code from him, but Ripper gets away. (Will we be able to stop Putin?) The really scary kicker in Kubrick’s film, however, is that the Soviets have built a doomsday machine that will launch enough missiles to destroy all life on Earth if an American nuclear bomb hits them. (I’m pretty confident Putin’s enemies - us - won’t go this far.) Eventually, Ripper is overpowered, but shoots himself before the recall code can be given. (An inside job on Putin, perhaps, before he can incinerate the planet?) One man ignores the recall code and piles headlong towards Moscow. (A member of Putin’s inner team, perhaps?) He attempts to drop the bomb (On Ukraine? On Europe? On America?) After some door-jamming black humour he opens the doors and rides down on the bomb. 💣 Moscow retaliates with horrifying consequences for the planet. (Surely the West won’t go this far.) Let’s hope that, in this case, life won’t imitate art.👀
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I hope not. I hope in the future we, as a species, have gone beyond primitive ideas of ‘belonging’ based on random, arbitrary accidents of birth. Far too many of us are proud of being born and raised within arbitrary, random, abstract lines drawn on a map, instead of raising their vision to encompass the whole Earth. We need, and we need right now, to ditch identities based around random accidents of birth and imagined daddies in the sky, otherwise we shall never wake up from this collective human nightmare of the past 300,000 years.🤔
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah, but our furthest out object, Voyager 1, is ‘only’ currently 14 billion miles away from Earth having been launched in 1977, whereas Proxima Centauri, our nearest star, is 4.22 light years away, or in other words, using current technology, what would take us 6,300 years to reach. This sheer scale of the Universe, for me, makes it nigh-on impossible that we have been visited by extraterrestrial beings or crafts. However, given the 200 billion trillion stars in the known Universe, I don’t for one moment, simply on the balance of statistical probability, doubt that they are ‘out there’; just not ‘in here’.
1
-
@1:00 Being a sceptic is ‘a lazy way to look at things’? Really? Does this guy not realise that all the greatest scientists who ever lived were, strictly speaking, ‘sceptics’? (Leaving aside conventional piety a la Newton) They were, rightly, mighty sceptical of the accepted prevailing theories of day, and went out to form new theories, based on that scepticism, and test them and thus work out what was really going on. Scepticism is the only way numbskull theories are tested and found wanting. Do you think Galileo, for example, would have got any work done if he hadn’t been a questioning ‘sceptic’ not willing to accept the religious orthodoxies of the day? Get real, man. Every person worth their brains who ever walked this planet was a sceptic. Until all the evidence is in.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nauudb Fair point. I repeat this point though: Greater Catalonia, for want of a better term, encompasses parts of France and Spain, and the Basque areas ditto, therefore one would think it incumbent on those, at least those with genuine Basque/Catalan heritage, but also, arguably even those who have chosen to settle there and have no intrinsic Basque/Catalan links, to learn French and Spanish and Basque/Catalan. Put it this way, if I moved to live in Perpignan and I were planning to root myself there, French, obviously, would be paramount and indispensable, but a strong working knowledge, at the very least, of Spanish, would be required and then perhaps a glancing nod to Catalan. On the other side, in Barcelona, ditto for 1. Spanish 2. Catalan 3. French. But, as I said somewhere else, if I had actual Catalan or Basque heritage I would feel almost duty-bound to know the apposite 3 languages.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@euroesc5013 Gotcha! Actually, that makes sense. I can speak, read and write English, French, Spanish and Italian to a good level; however, I’ve had little exposure to Portuguese, but given the Latin linguistic ballast in my brain I could probably understand many Portuguese words, and deduce the rest from the given context. My issue, if it is an issue, is how Barcelona is now, via the TGV/AVE, 1h from the French border, yet, apparently, many Barcelonais don’t speak French, beyond the basics. They even seem scared of it, when they are not just indifferent. They recognise it, yes, but beyond that not much else. I find that fascinating.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, he’s clearly correct, of course. This must sting for the right-wingers when one of their own goes against the grain. Never got the “hate what another human does when it comes to their sexual preferences” memo. Makes utterly no sense. I tend to dislike people for their ideas, their beliefs, their opinions, their dress-sense, and not something over which they have utterly no say or control. It’s like dissing people with different skin colour. Pointless. Not only pointless, but utterly stupid and moronic as no one chooses their skin colour, just as no one chooses their sexuality. But here’s the clincher for me: even if we did choose our skin colour and sexuality, it still wouldn’t bother me one iota that some random has a different skin colour or sexuality to me. The sooner we can move beyond this primitive nonsense as a species, the better. To me, being homophobic is a bit like feeling resentful of someone digging Uranus because you’re not an astronomer.
1
-
@paranoidrodent French spoken in France varies quite remarkably, for such a relatively (in Canadian terms) small country. Marseille has an Italian thing going on, which is not that surprising, given its history and relationship with its cousins 250km along the coast to the east. Up north, you have the ch’ti dialect of French, which is difficult for me to properly tune into, but sounds quite charming, with all its Flemish phlegm and notwithstanding its unintelligibility. Only really was alerted to this via the film, ‘Bienvenue Chez Les Ch’tis,’ from a few years ago.
Never been to Minnesota, but ‘Fargo’ looms as it was set there with all those Twin Peaksy, otherworldly accents. Of course, the state bred the marvellous Jayhawks, as well, so my radar has clocked that state for this reason.
We are all mongrels. That’s why it amazes me that the human species places so much emphasis on an accident of birth when it comes to self-definition. I’ve never fully understood this thing whereby one takes pride in the fact one’s mum plopped one out here and not there. You had no say in the matter, so being ‘proud’ of this seems nonsensical, irrational and dangerous, given human history over the last 300,000 years.
As for Catholicism; well, an inexplicably influential force in the history of humanity, that, amazingly, to this day folk still adhere to. I’m a lapsed Catholic; can you tell?
1
-
1
-
@davidmoreno1397 Seriously though, you must have non-Spanish/Mexican heritage with a name like that, no? Actually, I’ve just checked it: you have an Irish surname, and, of course, David has Hebrew roots. It was your surname I was puzzling about. Actually, having done more research on the etymology of your surname, it seems there is an English version, after all. Being British, I knew instinctively your surname sounded more (no pun intended) English than Hispanic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paranoidrodent You’re dead right about the richness and complexity of language and accents, certainly here in the UK, but also in France, with which I’m slightly less au fait. It almost changes village to village here in Scotland, never mind city to city. I’m fascinated at how, in this era of dominant globalisation, these accents and their differentiating minutiae have managed to survive, indeed, in some cases even strengthen, in the face of a wave of monolingual (English), mono-accented (mid-Atlantic) mainstream global culture that has been wittingly or otherwise, resisted by all those who still speak in a unique, distinct manner.
Yeah, ‘Bienvenue …’ is a film I saw about a decade ago, and from hazy memory I recall it being a bit too free and easy with the lazy stereotypes (cultured southerners versus northern boors; it’s always sunny down south versus it’s grim up north etc), but I forgave this, in part because I giggled so much. It was smooth and a little too trite in its vision, but for a few diverting belly laughs it was just the ticket!
Oh, where does one begin with Catholicism and its, erm, ‘philosophy’. First of all I knew, aged 9, when I asked my Catholic school R.E. teacher why there were no female priests and why the Pope was always a man and she shrugged at me and more or less said, ‘It’s God’s will’, that there and then this Catholicism malarkey was a bit rum, and not necessarily in a good way. ‘Oh, and why is God a man, Miss?’, well let’s just say the look on her face suggested an upstart like me asking such impertinent questions ought to disengage the brain and just accept it. It just was. Not good enough for me, even at that age, and when I looked into the whole shebang a little more and saw a benighted thinking (if you could call it such), denying women a choice in terms of their bodies’ reproductive status, banned abortions, under any circumstances, however horrendous, and wanted me to go into a wee booth and confess all my dirty thoughts to a, frankly creepy, stranger in a frock, well, I ran for the hills to breathe the clean air of a life without following unsubstantiated, and often pernicious, moral dictums enunciated by an invisible sky God. Atheism (or for me, agnosticism: call me weak) seemed a better option: a non-prophet organisation with no invisible means of support.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ramingoudarzi1806 Talent? Cheating? Yeah, spoken like a true native Argentinian, I bet. A country so institutionally corrupt and rotten to the core that it’s constantly economically, politically and socially on its knees begging for mercy, imploring that somebody put it out of its misery. Maradona was gifted naturally (no God involved, my friend, notwithstanding his feckless protestations to the contrary), but Argentina’s 1986 World Cup victory was a cheat’s victory, the victory of a team, to a man, carried by a fraud. Albeit an extremely gifted fraud.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think, on balance, the Internet is probably a good thing. For me, its principal boon is the democratisation of opinion. We are able to post and are able read the posts of those who in a pre-Internet age would’ve had no public voice. Of course, the downside of this is that every man and his dog can post about the minutiae of their lives and, realistically, this is going to be of no interest to 99.9% recurring of the population. However, I would argue that just the fact of anyone with access to the Internet has a voice and that is ipso-facto a good thing, regardless of the content they post (and concomitantly the content others consume). It’s down to the consumer to discern and sift the wheat from the chaff as they see it. My main gripe against the Internet, however, has to be the drastic deterioration in our individual/collective attention spans. This inevitably bleeds into ‘real life’ and manifests itself as an intolerant impatience in one’s interlocutor as soon as they feel that urge to be distracted by the next thing/person. Paradoxically, I find that people who are not so in thrall to the Internet in their day to day lives are the people most likely to listen, to truly listen to another, whereas those who seemingly have the most practice at listening to others in the cacophony of Internet chatter are often disastrous at being able to listen and interact in ‘real life’. 💻
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shennehs_rey2584 Yeah, but do you just live in the culture you were born into without questioning it? If you do, you are a slave. It’s your duty, as a thinking human being, to interrogate and question everything you encounter. You have no defence in the simple fact you were born in a certain country. So, Mexico may be patriarchal, macho, hidebound when it comes to the modern world; your job is to think about this and do what you think might be efficacious in changing this situation if you consider such a change desirable. I’m always very, very wary of countries/cultures who consider themselves ‘all that’. We the outsiders, will be the judge of that. If I go to Mexico, and see an overtly macho culture that relegates women to the sidelines, I’m going to call that as I see it. My sense is, having visited Mexico twice, is that, yes, it’s a very macho culture, and notwithstanding its ostensible friendliness, there is an underlying self-doubt. After all, any country that needs to assert its friendliness and how welcoming it is, is a country unsure of that status. No one is screaming that the sun ☀️ is going to rise tomorrow.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Most crop circles are unimpressive nothings, which could (and probably were) be made by a group of pranksters. What gets me about this phenomenon are the intricate, amazing-looking ones that, if you asked me, couldn’t be made by humans in a week, let alone a night. My only doubt about the really impressive ones is: were they were genuinely made ‘overnight’. The one I always cite is the 2001 Milk 🥛 Hill circle. Now, if you tell me that a bunch of, say, 25 people have a week to create this masterpiece (for that’s what it is), then I might believe you, but even then with difficulty, given it’s scale and precision. If you tell me that on a Monday this thing wasn’t there, and by a Tuesday morning it was … then, there is either an army of very skilful, speedy artists out there, or something very strange is going on. It all hinges on whether these things are created overnight, something which cannot be verified, alas.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jenjones90 Just for the record, and in the interests of balance, the UK has some high-points, aesthetically: my hometown, Edinburgh, is up there in any list of most beautiful European cities; Durham is a delight; Bath is beautiful; Chester’s charming; it ain’t all bad! However, I’m afraid that when it comes to natural beauty the UK once again cannot hold a candle to the likes of France, Spain or Italy. Even the Highlands of Scotland (massively overrated imo) are no match for the Italian Alps, or Dolomites or Apennines. Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but most everyone I meet with whom I discuss these things would concur with the aforementioned opinions.
1
-
1
-
@jenjones90 Ah, you’re twisting the debate now. This was originally about the visual merits of certain places. The economics of a place is a different matter. I lived in Sicily for a year back in the 1990s and the quality of life (sunny, relaxed, healthy, surrounded by beauty everywhere) was much better than the grey, grim treadmill stress of the UK. Yes, some of the attitudes vis-a-vis women were a bit hidebound, but this didn’t ruin or unbalance the overwhelming positives when compared to the UK. Also, many of these attitudes you mention exist in France and Spain, too, and I have lived in both those places, too. When you weigh up the pros and cons of life in France, Spain or Italy versus life in the UK, for me, the Latin countries win out every time, notwithstanding their evident deficiencies and social/economic issues.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
🦠 ‘Viral fist fights’? ‘And in the blue corner, weighing in at less than a micro gram, undefeated in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa, with a record of several thousand knockouts, iiiiiitttttt’sssss Extraordinary , Exceptional Ebola Viiiiiirrrrrruuuussss.’ ‘And in the red corner, weighing in at a millionth of a gram, with a record of several hundred thousand knockouts, still undefeated in China, iiiiiiiiittttttttt’ssssss, Calamitous, Crushing COVID-19 Viiiiiiiirrrrrruuuuussss.’ 🥊
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This came through on the wires from Kepler- 452b. I thought I’d pass it on.
“The trouble humanity has, and has always had, is one of self-definition. Before ‘human being’, first and foremost, you seem to want to put this or that random accident of birth, or this or that imagined daddy in the sky. Individually, this is not an issue. However, when you band together with others on the basis of random accidents of birth and imagined daddies in the sky, the trouble starts. One of your wise ones, Nietzsche, looked at this in the eye and called it: In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. With an outlier like Putin, you need to develop a workable system of removing such dictators from positions of power. In the kindergarten, the staff don’t allow a single bully to ride roughshod over others as whim dictates. Why, then, do you allow this as adults?”👽
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TRUEBIOLOGYMATTERS An even simpler way to prove this, more or less, is that as we speak 622 people have gone into space. Now, I’ve got to tell you, if I’d been one of those astronauts, and I’d got up there and lo! I found out and saw that the Earth were flat, I would not have been able to keep that a secret, no matter how many non-disclosures I had signed. On this basis, I quite simply don’t buy that 622 human beings have gone into orbit and not one of them would not have come back with the news that the Earth isn’t round if indeed it isn’t. On a personal level, I have seen for myself the effect of the curvature of the Earth on several occasions by following the procedure outlined in number 5 in my previous post. Sunset. Sun goes down. Sprint up a hill at top speed and when you get to the top, the sun has reappeared above the horizon. So, yes, the Earth is almost 100% not flat in my mind. I’m as sure of this as I’m sure of my own name.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Always mistrusted overtly ‘political’ comedy of any stripe. Never understood this human compulsion many seem to have to put all their political eggs into a single basket. When I assess my views on each given topic I find I am ‘liberal’ in some, ‘green’ in others, ‘conservative’ in more and ‘socialist’ in a few. The rest I haven’t made my mind up yet. Blake’s dictum I always have in mind here when it comes to these things which, for me, are under constant review: The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind. Or even better, this from Emerson, which captures perfectly the predicament of those toeing a party line, come what may: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood. Or this from the glorious Whitman: Do I contradict myself?/Very well then I contradict myself/I am large, I contain multitudes.) To bind yourself to ideas one day, and then to be doomed to defend them come what may, is not worthy of the thinking human being.😳
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@T1227trx According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2009a, 2009b) the world produces more than 1 1/2 times enough food to feed everyone on the planet. That's already enough to feed 10 billion people, the world's 2050 projected population peak. Now I’m not sure how you intellectually operate, mate, but if I have 2 apples, you are hungry and have none, and I refuse (for whatever reason) to give you one of my apples, then, yes, I’m indirectly causing your hunger, by not acting to assuage your hunger when it’s in my gift to do so - causation by omission, if you will. If you’re going to quibble with me about the semantics of direct/indirect causation in what is an existential crisis for you, then I suggest you’re not engaging with the urgency of the situation. So, I repeat: as we speak, we produce way more food than we need. 1 in 8 people go to bed hungry. We have the capability to distribute that food. It seems to me the only thing lacking is the will, not the food. Given all that, I’d kindly suggest that my original point is correct: the hunger in today’s world is man made, and with enough will and effort, could be solved.🥸
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, he’s clearly correct, of course. This must sting for the right-wingers when one of their own goes against the grain. Never got the “hate what another human does when it comes to their sexual preferences” memo. Makes utterly no sense. I tend to dislike people for their ideas, their beliefs, their opinions, their dress-sense, and not something over which they have utterly no say or control. It’s like dissing people with different skin colour. Pointless. Not only pointless, but utterly stupid and moronic as no one chooses their skin colour, just as no one chooses their sexuality. But here’s the clincher for me: even if we did choose our skin colour and sexuality, it still wouldn’t bother me one iota that some random has a different skin colour or sexuality to me. The sooner we can move beyond this primitive nonsense as a species, the better. To me, being homophobic is a bit like feeling resentful of someone digging Uranus because you’re not an astronomer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You lot are in complete denial. I’m no paid-up member of the environmental brigade, just someone who looks at the evidence. The evidence, the raw data is incontrovertible. Between 1901 and 2018, the average global sea level rose by 15–25 cm (6–10 in), or 1–2 mm per year. This rate is increasing; sea levels are now rising at a rate of 3.7 mm (0.146 inches) per year. Human-caused climate change is predominantly the cause, as it constantly heats (and thus expands) the ocean and melts land-based ice sheets and glaciers. Between 1993 and 2018, thermal expansion of water contributed 42% to sea level rise; melting of temperate glaciers contributed 21%; Greenland contributed 15%; and Antarctica contributed 8%. Because sea level rise lags changes in Earth temperature, it will continue to accelerate between now and 2050 purely in response to already-occurring warming; whether it continues to accelerate after that depends on human greenhouse gas emissions. If global warming is limited to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F), then sea level rise does not accelerate, but it would still amount to 2–3 m (7–10 ft) over the next 2000 years, while 2–6 m (7–20 ft) would occur if the warming peaks at 2 °C (3.6 °F) and 19–22 metres (62–72 ft) if it peaks at 5 °C (9.0 °F). Now, whichever way you cut it, the clear conclusion from all this is that a good part of the global warming we have seen over the past 200 years or so, is indeed largely caused by human activity, principally fossil fuel burning. Given this, it makes utter sense to phase out fossil fuels. With this caveat: we must do it sensibly. They will be needed for some time to come as the transition to renewables is made. Who knows? Given that we are currently in an inter-glacial period, 500 years down the line when we have stopped using fossil fuels, the planet might start a rapid cooling trend leading to that ever-promised next Ice Age, and there might be a desperate clamour to start burning fossil fuels as quickly as possible!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Always mistrusted overtly ‘political’ comedy of any stripe. Never understood this human compulsion many seem to have to put all their political eggs into a single basket. When I assess my views on each given topic I find I am ‘liberal’ in some, ‘green’ in others, ‘conservative’ in more and ‘socialist’ in a few. The rest I haven’t made my mind up yet. Blake’s dictum I always have in mind here when it comes to these things which, for me, are under constant review: The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind. Or even better, this from Emerson: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood. Or this from the glorious Whitman: Do I contradict myself?/Very well then I contradict myself/I am large, I contain multitudes.) To bind yourself to ideas one day, and then to be doomed to defend them come what may, is not worthy of the thinking human being.😳
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Always mistrusted overtly ‘political’ comedy of any stripe. Never understood this human compulsion many seem to have to put all their political eggs into a single basket. When I assess my views on each given topic I find I am ‘liberal’ in some, ‘green’ in others, ‘conservative’ in more and ‘socialist’ in a few. The rest I haven’t made my mind up yet. Blake’s dictum I always have in mind here when it comes to these things which, for me, are under constant review: The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind. Or even better, this from Emerson: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood. Or this from the glorious Whitman: Do I contradict myself?/Very well then I contradict myself/I am large, I contain multitudes.) To bind yourself to ideas one day, and then to be doomed to defend them come what may, is not worthy of the thinking human being.😳
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I agree with a lot of what he says, but he’s over-egging the danger of some kind of state-control of the docile masses. No one has forced, or will force him or his children to have a vaccine. Anyway, control of mass-behaviour has been with us for decades through media, advertising, marketing and education. He himself has been bewitched into believing in an unverifiable sky-god. They are not going to force people to have any vaccine, at least in this country. So, there his argument collapses without it taking off. My main point about Neil, though, is this: he talks about ‘madness’ almost willy-nilly but he needs to take a good look at himself, for is there anything more ‘mad’ than putting your blind faith in an invisible sky-god? He doesn’t seem to realise that some people can’t take too much of this vaguely paranoid, hypocritical talk of ‘madness’ until he puts his own ‘mad’ house in order and looks critically at his irrational belief in an unverifiable sky-god first.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JoeM Incidentally, the ‘God’ you purport to worship was rather nicely summed up by Richard Dawkins: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” Dawkins nails your deeply unpleasant God. More people on this planet have been “corrupted” by this horrendous creature than all the men in frocks combined! 🤣
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Tab Ford And for Harry and Meghan: 6. I meant to put that in the previous post, but there is no denying GB News is utterly, tediously obsessed with both stories. I don’t know anyone else who is. So why would GB News be so obsessed with Pip? Ah, yes, he’s gay, and that’s a mighty trigger point for a huge swathe of GB News viewers, where they seem to feel it’s a free for all and put the boot in when we’re dealing with a homosexual. As to Meghan and Harry: well, it’s probably because they snubbed a primitive, pointless, bloated, undemocratic, unaccountable institution like the British Royal Family, and we all know GB News viewers are very fond of the Royal Family, now don’t we?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@labouraredangerous ‘According to the 2022 census, Brazil had 88,252,121 White people, 92,083,286 Mixed people, 20,656,458 Black people, 850,132 Asian people, and 1 227 640 Indigenous people.’
Bad luck. 😭
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@garethm7528 Yes, Gareth. So you’ll be asking random work colleagues their dick size and bra size next will you? To me, doing that would be on a par as being as inappropriate as asking a work acquaintance when they popped their cherry. If you’re mates, not just work colleagues, then that’s different, but if I were a woman, and you, Gareth, just some random who happens to work in the same space as me, asked me when I lost my virginity, I would class that as borderline harassment, and at the very least, deeply inappropriate. After all, what f*cking business is it of yours, or anyone else?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I kinda agree with Dax to the extent that the media vilification of Harry and Meghan from some quarters is way over the top. Race, Harry being a traitor to his family and country by leaving them, their constant whining about stuff, and, yes, their utter hypocrisy about wanting privacy, yet they invade the lives of their nearest and dearest with their salacious tales, all feeds into this vilification, but for me, when all is said and done, I couldn’t care less about them, and it’s a constant source of bemusement as to why so many others get their knickers in a twist over them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Always mistrusted overtly ‘political’ comedy of any stripe. Never understood this human compulsion many seem to have to put all their political eggs into a single basket. When I assess my views on each given topic I find I am ‘liberal’ in some, ‘green’ in others, ‘conservative’ in more and ‘socialist’ in a few. The rest I haven’t made my mind up yet. Blake’s dictum I always have in mind here when it comes to these things which, for me, are under constant review: The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind. Or even better, this from Emerson: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood. Or this from the glorious Whitman: Do I contradict myself?/Very well then I contradict myself/I am large, I contain multitudes.) To bind yourself to ideas one day, and then to be doomed to defend them come what may, is not worthy of the thinking human being.😳
1
-
1
-
A big part of the uproar here, aside from half-naked men in stripper heels swinging around provocatively on ropes in a school classroom in front of pre-teens, is what is said surrounding ‘gender ideology’ when drags take the class. It’s clearly agenda-based. Can we just get this straight (pun intended) once and for all? Humans cannot change biological sex, which is determined at fertilization (genotype) and during embryonic development (phenotype). People may change many features of their lives, such as their interests, hobbies, diet, friends or careers. However, some facts are unalterable. A person’s genetic inheritance, their biological sex, (not culturally-determined gender), is an immutable characteristic. No amount of ‘gender-reassignment’ can alter the fact that if you were born with XY sex chromosomes, you will die with XY sex chromosomes, and if you were born with XX sex chromosomes, you will die with XX sex chromosomes. Most, but not all, people fall into one of these two biologically-determined sex categories. Hermaphroditism is rare but should be noted here. As is XX male syndrome, but even in these cases, their own biological chromosomal inheritance cannot be altered. A hermaphrodite cannot biologically ‘unhermaphrodite’ themselves. None of the foregoing means to say a person cannot choose to ‘identify’ as a man when biologically a woman, or a woman when biologically a man. It’s a free world, after all. And it also doesn’t mean to say a fella can’t don a frock or a woman can’t waltz around in a well-fitted suit and tie. Wear what you want. However, identifying as one of the supposed 73 ‘genders’ is no different to my ‘identifying’ as a pig, or a snake, or a fish, when all my unalterable biological wiring says I’m a human being.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pauldavies4522 Moreover, what about the millions of heterosexual couples who don’t want children? Are they banned from sex? If you’re argument that sex is for procreation only, this is where your bizarre, prehistoric logic leads. I suspect you are a brainwashed believer in invisible sky daddies. That’s fine. Believe what you want. Just stay out my bedroom, mate, as it’s beyond creepy, weird, fascist and utterly inappropriate for some random to be policing the bedroom antics of 2 consenting adults . I’m sure you wouldn’t like it if I said to you, you couldn’t have sex with someone upon pain of death just because I have a weird, random, unsubstantiated belief that somehow heterosexual sex is “wrong”. You people never give even a scintilla of a reason for your ideas. It’s all just random feeling, based on 2 lines in a primitive book written 2,000 years ago. Have a good day, now! 👍
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@S-North Just for the record, I gave you my answer. You may be too thick to understand it but here it is again: Ok, so you’re going to go down the genetic line, are you? 🤦♂️ So, if you’re going to do that then you need to establish a genetic test to decide who is truly British and who isn’t. Moreover, and this is the more important point, if and when you establish this, what are you going to do? Are you gonna throw out the likes of Saka, Rashford and Bellingham, on the basis their genes don’t count? You’re a dangerous dude, son. 👍
1
-
@S-North I don’t respond kindly to twats who type ‘,,,,,,,,,,,’ like some kinda freak who never got educated. Soz, son. 😭
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertjones2053 Bother me ?! Lol. None of this “bothers me”. It’s GB News viewers who get antsy about all this stuff. My initial response was to someone questioning her status as a British citizen, and all I was saying is that she is one. Moreover, just for the record, just 464 British citizens have had their citizenship revoked in the past 15 years, so it’s hardly a common thing. What I don’t get in this wider debate, is why people have such an issue with other ethnicities. I live in a place with dozens and dozens of ethnically diverse and different peoples, and we all rub along. In my tenement stairwell alone, we have a half-Frenchy (me!), a German, 2 Spaniards, an Indian couple, 2 Pakistani couples, and some Americans, along with the usual Welsh, Scots, English etc. and we all rub along together just fine. Moreover, every one of these people, to a man and a woman, speaks perfect English, pays their taxes and obeys the law. That’s all I ask. I quite frankly couldn’t give a 🐒’s about someone’s ethnic background. My only single caveat in all this is a certain cohort of Muslims who appear reluctant to fully integrate into the UK. I accept that. The rest? Zero issue. As for miscegenation? A good thing. Bring it on.👍
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@@user-uk9cb9fs3i Just for the record: I live in a tenement of at least 25 people top to bottom. Of those people, I can count 7 nationalities. We all get on like a house on fire. My only ever issues with immigration were 2-fold: 1. It should be strictly controlled by the host nation. 2. As an agnostic, I wholly mistrust all organised religion, but it seems to me there is a certain cohort of Muslims who want to impose their ways and mores and religious laws wherever they go. I find that anathema. The rest? Poles, Spanish, Chinese, Indians, Americans, Malays, Thais, Japanese etc etc. I have zero issue with.
One final thing, in my experience, those who bang on about ‘indigenous’ this and ‘indigenous’ that are almost without exception the last kind of people I want to share my genes with. Facts. By this I mean that they are, again almost without exception, badly educated, incurious, staggeringly dull and here’s the utterly ironic clincher: almost to a man and a woman they have worse basic English skills than those migrants they bemoan. More facts. Uh huh.😊
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Always mistrusted overtly ‘political’ comedy of any stripe. Never understood this human compulsion many seem to have to put all their political eggs into a single basket. When I assess my views on each given topic I find I am ‘liberal’ in some, ‘green’ in others, ‘conservative’ in more and ‘socialist’ in a few. The rest I haven’t made my mind up yet. Blake’s dictum I always have in mind here when it comes to these things which, for me, are under constant review: The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind. Or even better, this from Emerson: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood. Or this from the glorious Whitman: Do I contradict myself?/Very well then I contradict myself/I am large, I contain multitudes.) To bind yourself to ideas one day, and then to be doomed to defend them come what may, is not worthy of the thinking human being.😳
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Until, and if, this younger guy comes out publicly and gives his side of the story, I refuse to join the Schofield witch-hunt. The man himself I find meh, but I was always taught, until all the evidence has been heard you do not rush to judgment. Also, I find it interesting there is no NDA: so, if I were an unwilling victim of “grooming” I think I would go public (even under cover of anonymity) and let the world know about it. Here’s my theory, for what it is worth: these 2 met when this guy was clearly underage. They had verbal contact. Schofield may have had unholy thoughts but knew he couldn’t act on them. When the guy was “of age” they had a consensual affair. Now, if this is the case, absolutely no crime has been committed and we all just need to move on from this staggeringly boring story.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Always mistrusted overtly ‘political’ comedy of any stripe. Never understood this human compulsion many seem to have to put all their political eggs into a single basket. When I assess my views on each given topic I find I am ‘liberal’ in some, ‘green’ in others, ‘conservative’ in more and ‘socialist’ in a few. The rest I haven’t made my mind up yet. Blake’s dictum I always have in mind here when it comes to these things which, for me, are under constant review: The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind. Or even better, this from Emerson: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood. Or this from the glorious Whitman: Do I contradict myself?/Very well then I contradict myself/I am large, I contain multitudes.) To bind yourself to ideas one day, and then to be doomed to defend them come what may, is not worthy of the thinking human being.😳
1
-
1
-
Always mistrusted overtly ‘political’ comedy of any stripe. Never understood this human compulsion many seem to have to put all their political eggs into a single basket. When I assess my views on each given topic I find I am ‘liberal’ in some, ‘green’ in others, ‘conservative’ in more and ‘socialist’ in a few. The rest I haven’t made my mind up yet. Blake’s dictum I always have in mind here when it comes to these things which, for me, are under constant review: The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind. Or even better, this from Emerson: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood. Or this from the glorious Whitman: Do I contradict myself?/Very well then I contradict myself/I am large, I contain multitudes.) To bind yourself to ideas one day, and then to be doomed to defend them come what may, is not worthy of the thinking human being.😳
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mindcraft4362 I’m afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree here, as I don’t see “trans women” as “real women”; that is they are not biological females and never can be. The other nonsense (as I see it) is the multifarious number of genders everyone has to get their head around these days. Why did these “genders” not exist 50 or 100 years ago? No, here’s what I think: there are two biological sexes and it’s impossible to change biological sex, and shoehorning 72 genders into the debate (as seems to be the case these days), or mutilating your body, is not going to change that one iota. Just for the record, I’m not that old, and I don’t know a single biological woman who wants biological men in their spaces. And by “spaces”, I don’t just mean physical spaces, but spaces such as sporting events. For example, the recent decision to not allow trans women to compete in cycling events was clearly the correct one as imo, allowing trans women to compete in biological female events is akin to allowing an adult football team to compete in an U-14’s league. As I say, we’ll have to disagree on this. All the best.👍
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@howardjones7370 Oh, man. You really can’t let this lie, can you, son? You know what you’re betraying? You’re betraying radical doubt in your own case, sweet-pea. Moreover, you’re also betraying a desperate, dangerous inability to deal with an opinion you don’t happen to hold. Just move on. I’ve clearly stated my case. I have no issue with others disagreeing as I believe my case is sound. You, however, intrinsically feel you have a shaky case, and so you can’t just accept another opinion and walk on by. I recommend you do this, darling, as this to and fro is going to do nothing for your cardiac health in the long-run, chickpea. Pop yourself to bed with a nice mug of cocoa would be my sage advice at this juncture. Beware, however, of those nasty nightmares where old men in bondage gear haunt your dreams! Muahahahaha! 👻 😊💋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrisj1477 Huh? Lol@“the default to history” from someone who puts his faith in a book written 2,000 years ago by a bunch of men! 🤣Bloody hypocrite. Let’s take the ‘Good Book’, shall we. I once read a Richard Dawkins quote about your guide to life and it just about nails it for me: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrisb9345 Well, if there is no proven castration, I’d be reluctant to admit trans women en masse into female spaces. I would take it on a case by case basis, probably. I’m fully aware, along with you and the likes of Linehan, that there are those trying to play the system, but you could say that about any system, and for me, the vast, vast majority of trans people are not trying to play the system, and the ones who are, should be monitored very carefully.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As I understand it, this law is designed to protect race, disability, age, religion, sexual orientation and transgender identity. However, there is one key difference between 2 of these categories and the other 4. With race, disability, age and sexual orientation, no one expressly chooses these, as such. With religion and in many cases of transgender identity, these have been explicitly chosen by the given individual and are therefore liable to honest criticism. Never let anyone tell you it’s ‘racist’ or a ‘hate-crime’ to criticise Islam or, indeed any other religion. Islam is a bunch of ideas. These ideas are held by people of multifarious races. No one is criticizing these peoples’ race, or age, or disability, or sexual orientation. That would be stupid. No one chooses these categories. However, it’s not necessarily stupid to criticise Islam or any other religion. Why? People choose that. Equally, it’s not necessarily stupid to suggest that a person claiming to be a ‘woman’ is actually a biological man and vice-versa. Why? Because they are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertrussell2202 Every single thing you named as “British culture” is just random generic stuff and could (and does) equally apply to the 6 other countries I have lived in and at least 50 more I could randomly think of. Therefore, these things you list are not intrinsically “British”.
Democracy ~ Ancient Athens, therefore not intrinsically British.
Human Rights ~ Universal, and again first established in Ancient Greece, therefore not intrinsically British.
Freedom ~ again this goes back to Ancient Greece, so not intrinsically British.
Unity ~ not sure what you mean by this exactly as it’s so general as to be rendered meaningless. However, the concept of ‘unity’ almost certainly isn’t a British invention.
Strength ~ Again, at this point you’re just plucking random words out of the air in the desperate hope they are intrinsically British. Strength? Wtf.
Vision ~ dozens of other places I can think of have ‘vision’ (whatever that even means) and once again to co-opt this concept as intrinsically British is stretching it at best and complete and utter baloney at worst. It’s the latter.
Civility ~ again, not a British invention. Moreover, I have travelled extensively on 4 continents and lived in 6 countries and I can think of many places where the people were more ‘civil’ and not so passive-aggressive as many Brits I encounter daily.
Fairness ~ fairness is just a universal human trait. You either have it or you don’t and to nationalise it as you are doing for your jejune argument is desperate indeed.
Manners ~ Again, not intrinsically British. I have met thousands of just as well mannered people as any well-mannered Brit you care to suggest and none of them were British.
Humour ~ universal. Not intrinsically a British thing. Yes, I would argue in this case that there might be a certain British way of looking at things comedically, so I may actually give you this one.
The liberator from tyranny ~ lol. The nation that colonised and enslaved and stole from others?! The ‘liberator from tyranny’?! Pmsl. Rather the opposite for a large part of British history.
Half a point, Robert. When it comes to humour, I would agree with you that the British sense of humour is somewhat unique; but as with all the other things you randomly mentioned, humour isn’t intrinsically British in and of itself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A big part of the uproar here, aside from half-naked men in stripper heels swinging around provocatively on ropes in a school classroom in front of pre-teens, is what is said surrounding ‘gender ideology’ when drags take the class. It’s clearly agenda-based. Can we just get this straight (pun intended) once and for all? Humans cannot change biological sex, which is determined at fertilization (genotype) and during embryonic development (phenotype). People may change many features of their lives, such as their interests, hobbies, diet, friends or careers. However, some facts are unalterable. A person’s genetic inheritance, their biological sex, (not culturally-determined gender), is an immutable characteristic. No amount of ‘gender-reassignment’ can alter the fact that if you were born with XY sex chromosomes, you will die with XY sex chromosomes, and if you were born with XX sex chromosomes, you will die with XX sex chromosomes. Most, but not all, people fall into one of these two biologically-determined sex categories. Hermaphroditism is rare but should be noted here. As is XX male syndrome, but even in these cases, their own biological chromosomal inheritance cannot be altered. A hermaphrodite cannot biologically ‘unhermaphrodite’ themselves. None of the foregoing means to say a person cannot choose to ‘identify’ as a man when biologically a woman, or a woman when biologically a man. It’s a free world, after all. And it also doesn’t mean to say a fella can’t don a frock or a woman can’t waltz around in a well-fitted suit and tie. Wear what you want. However, identifying as one of the supposed 73 ‘genders’ is no different to my ‘identifying’ as a pig, or a snake, or a fish, when all my unalterable biological wiring says I’m a human being.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tamaralaw09 Yeah, but to be fair the balance has always been ‘totally out of whack by design’. Jesus didn’t pipe up, 2000 years ago, for the rich folk. ‘Twas ever thus, alas. However, the key for me is what a person values. Family, friends, health, achievements, love … these all seem more important than any economic systemic change one may desire to effect. Put it this way: I’d rather be a poor, but loved, soul, than a rich unloved w*nker.
1
-
@tamaralaw09 Look, all I’m saying is I don’t buy your theory that the so-called ‘working-class’ are the poor, put-upon, powerless creatures you seem to be suggesting they are. Let’s take examples: 1. Sport: any footballer you care to mention - working class. 2. Education: I’ve spent 30 years in this realm, and most of the people I worked with were, like me, ‘working-class’, for want of a better term. 3. Entertainment: well, this is a slam-dunk, as, unless you become a boxer, you become an ‘entertainer’ and every ‘entertainer’ worth their salt is, by definition almost, working-class. (Claudia Winkleman doesn’t count) 4. Law: speaking from personal experience here, I can say that at least 3 of my close relatives (working-class by any definition of this term: income, state education etc.), are lawyers. 5. Industry: by definition run by the working-classes. 6. Local Councils: to a man, and woman, in my experience working-class. I could go on, but I think you get the drift. If you are telling me there are deep inequalities in modern Britain, based on all sorts of reasons, then I agree. However, where I take issue with you is your contention (correct me if I’m wrong) that the so-called ‘working-classes’ are the poor, put-upon, losers of society. There are comfortable people and people less comfortable. I don’t buy this ‘oh, woe is me, I’m so poor’ narrative.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HeySay3 Why not make a protest against something you see as primitive and stupid? If no one ever protested, no progess would ever be made on this planet.
Whenever the topic of homophobia arises, I’m always a bit mystified. Why do certain people hate homosexuality with such a vehement passion?
Well, religion is clearly the no.1 reason as, in my experience, when questioned the vast majority (90+%) of homosexuality-haters I encounter are holy rollers who believe in this or that unverified and unverifiable invisible sky daddy. In the case of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) with their respective books written by men (anecdotally, I find men in my orbit far more likely to be homophobic than women and, tellingly, these same men are often far more forgiving of lesbianism than they are of male-on- male homosexuality), the literalist faithful are required to believe that homosexual sex is sinful and forbidden and by the letter of the holy law actually punishable by death! ( If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. ~ Leviticus 20:13).
No.2 is more than likely the classic closeted queer who just can’t accept their feelings and so actively pushes them away, for it is a truth universally acknowledged that those who express irrational homophobic sentiments are quite often repressed homosexuals themselves. Homosexual urges, when repressed out of shame or fear, can (and often are) expressed as homophobia. Freud famously called this process a “reaction formation” - the angry battle against the outward symbol of feelings that are inwardly being stifled.
No.3 is the simple lack of basic education. When you grow up in a culture where the most important text is some primitive book written by fallible men 1000s of years ago, you know you’re going to bump up against some stupid, risible opinions which cannot be logically maintained without the appeal to a putatively omnipotent, omniscient ‘God’. In the same book of the Old Testament which institutes death for homosexual acts it also says: Ye shall keep my statutes … neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon you. ~ Leviticus 19:19 As I said: stupid and risible.
I have many petty prejudices, some rational and some irrational, but hating what someone consensually does sexually isn’t one of them. Hitherto, not one person has given me a single rational reason why I should hate homosexuality. I tend to dislike people and what they do in terms of their ideas, their beliefs, their opinions, their unthinking actions which harm others, their dress-sense etc., but not something over which they have utterly no say or control, and particularly not something which causes no essential harm to another. In this debate, it’s crucial to properly distinguish between ‘offence’ and ‘harm’. You cannot be offended against your will. If you are offended, you play an active role in being offended. A potential offence is offered and you choose whether or not to take that offence. No one can be offended without their own intrinsic consent. On the other hand, you can be harmed against your will. With homosexuality, so many people utterly uninvolved with and unrelated to the given homosexuals seem to be mortally offended. I say: so what? You’re offended. Deal with it. No one is harming you here. It’s none of your business so butt-out.
Ultimately, hating homosexuality is like dissing people with a different skin colour. Pointless. Not only pointless, but utterly stupid and moronic, as no one chooses their skin colour, just as no one chooses their sexuality. But here’s the clincher for me: even if we did choose our skin colour and sexuality, it still wouldn’t bother me one iota that some random individual has a different skin colour or sexuality. The sooner we can move beyond this primitive nonsense as a species, the better. To me, being homophobic is a bit like feeling resentful of someone digging Uranus because you’re not an astronomer! 🔭
I repeat: Matt Healy essentially harmed no one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@corsojames Yes. But I think you’re missing my point. We should, after 300,000 odd years of Homo Sapiens, have a system in place whereby we can turf arseholes like him out. The trouble humanity has, and has always had, is one of self-definition. Before ‘human being’, first and foremost, we seem to want to put this or that random accident of birth, or this or that imagined daddy in the sky. Individually, this is not an issue. However, when we band together with others on the basis of random accidents of birth and imagined daddies in the sky, the trouble starts. Nietzsche looked at this in the eye and called it: In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. With an outlier like Putin, we need to develop a workable system of removing such dictators from positions of power. In the kindergarten, the staff don’t allow a single bully to ride roughshod over others as whim dictates. Why, then, do we allow this as adults? 👀
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah, but our furthest out object, Voyager 1, is ‘only’ currently 14 billion miles away from Earth having been launched in 1977, whereas Proxima Centauri, our nearest star, is 4.22 light years away, or in other words, using current technology, what would take us 6,300 years to reach. This sheer scale of the Universe, for me, makes it nigh-on impossible that we have been visited by extraterrestrial beings or crafts. However, given the 200 billion trillion stars in the known Universe, I don’t for one moment, simply on the balance of statistical probability, doubt that they are ‘out there’; just not ‘in here’.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TashaCreatesStuff Ok, a few nice houses. Put it this way, and once again, losing LA in a fire is, by and large, not the same as losing, say, Seville or Marrakesh, or Rome, or Dubrovnik or etc etc. My point? LA is, essentially, one of the uglier urban spots on the planet, notwithstanding one or two pretty houses.
1
-
@ambirat I think you may have missed my main point, so for the hard of observing: if LA were wiped from the map tomorrow, it wouldn’t be missed architecturally-speaking and could be rebuilt without guilt. If, say, Prague, or York, or Granada, or Florence, or Budapest etc., were wiped from the map, they very definitely would be missed. Irreplaceable. LA can be re-created because there was nothing there to lose in the first place! 👍
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@High_Lord_Of_Terra As a lifelong agnostic, I have very little time for any organised religion. However, the thing that should be said is that I feel zero personal threat from any organised religion, bar one. If I were a public figure and publicly castigated Jesus, or Moses, or Krishna, or Buddha, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it’s very likely nothing would happen to me. If I publicly lambasted Muhammad, it’s quite likely there’d be a backlash and I’d be watching my back for the rest of my life. That’s the difference. Just ask Salman Rushdie. It seems Islam is so trigger-sensitive it can’t take honest criticism, when it’s just a bunch of manmade ideas like all the rest. Never let anyone tell you it’s ‘racist’ or a ‘hate-crime’ to criticise Islam. Islam is a belief-system held by people of multifarious races. Islam seems to think it’s entitled to a free pass when it comes to scrutiny. If Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Spaghettiism, etc. are subject to criticism, then Islam is too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What are you on about? Jesus was a troublemaker, instigator of conflict, and a frequent disrupter of unity. He made a whip to forcefully drive moneychangers (bankers) out of the Temple, over-turning their tables (John 3:15). His disciples went out without a money belt, bag or sandals, and lacked nothing. But now, they are to bring a money belt and bag; and if they lack a sword , they are to “sell their cloak and purchase one” (Luke 22:35-36). Jesus the so-called pacifist instructing his followers to buy a sword? A pacifist? Really? It would be akin to him today advising the purchasing of a gun. This Jesus explicitly warns his disciples that he did not come to bring peace to Earth, but division (Luke 12:51). Not peace, but a sword! Because of him, son will turn against father, daughter against mother, and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. Even a person’s enemy will be a member of one’s own household (Matt. 10:34-36).
I fear your Jesus is a little PG in this debate. 🗡
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@djadam21 Adam, you would do well to read and digest these words, for as someone with no skin in the game here (lapsed Catholic agnostic), for me they are pretty much spot-on: I am frequently asked if I have visited Israel, whereas yet, it is simply assumed that I have. Well, I don’t travel. I really don’t, and if I did, I probably wouldn’t visit Israel. I remember how it was in 1948 when Israel was being established and all my Jewish friends were ecstatic, I was not. I said: what are we doing? We are establishing ourselves in a ghetto, in a small corner of a vast Muslim sea. The Muslims will never forget nor forgive, and Israel, as long as it exists, will be embattled. I was laughed at, but I was right. I can’t help but feel that the Jews didn’t really have the right to appropriate a territory only because 2000 years ago, people they consider their ancestors, were living there. History moves on and you can’t really turn it back. (Isaac Asimov)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@@TOM-TOM-TOM I’m going to repeat this, Tommo, in the hope you actually read it this time: When you create an artificial state by stealing land from others and thereby dispossessing them and then proceed to oppress them for decades on end, do you really expect no blowback? It was inevitable Israel’s neighbours were going to have a problem with its 1948 creation. It’s a bit like some random pitching up in my back garden one day and then proceeding to take over the whole house! Isaac Asimov nailed this:
I remember how it was in 1948 when Israel was being established and all my Jewish friends were ecstatic, I was not. I said: what are we doing? We are establishing ourselves in a ghetto, in a small corner of a vast Muslim sea. The Muslims will never forget nor forgive, and Israel, as long as it exists, will be embattled. I was laughed at, but I was right. I can’t help but feel that the Jews didn’t really have the right to appropriate a territory only because 2000 years ago, people they consider their ancestors, were living there. History moves on and you can’t really turn it back.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As someone once said, if liberals won’t enforce borders, fascists will. The vast majority of people I’m aware of, including myself, have no issue with controlled, legal immigration. Where the issue becomes problematic for many, again including myself, is when there appears to be absolutely no control over the influx of potentially illegal immigrants, which is what we have seen over the past 5 years with the Channel boat crossings, with 764 in 2018, 1,900 in 2019, 8,404 in 2020, 28,526 in 2021, 45,756 in 2022 and on this trajectory, we could see 70,000 this year. Of course, not all these people will be illegal economic migrants, as a proportion will be genuine refugees and asylum seekers. However, this notwithstanding, the immigration issue, as it stands, appears utterly chaotic and out of control and is categorically no different than having a random individual (illegal migrant) breaking into your house and demanding they stay, and you have no real way of evicting them. Of course, if that individual were desperate and genuinely fearing for their life and general safety (asylum seeker), most people would take pity and provide support, but even then this has to be done in a controlled manner. Whether one likes it or not, in the world as we have established it these past few centuries, borders matter. Sovereign territories, like sovereign householders, should absolutely have the right to refuse entry to illegal entrants. For example, for the life of me I cannot understand why we are accepting of so many people from an intrinsically safe European country like Albania. If you’re a genuine refugee, legality and basic humanity tells us these people should be humanely processed and if in fear of their lives, granted asylum. However, with illegal economic migrants, it’s also in their interest to claim refugee status: in other words, a key component of going some way to resolving this issue is to hire more staff to process the applications. Another component would be to go to source, that is to the gangs organising all this. There should be much greater emphasis placed on breaking up these networks . Imo, giving the French £500 million quid is throwing good money after bad. Letting migrants leave French shores is so many fewer migrants France itself has to deal with, so it’s folly to assume they are going to be on the case in this regard. Sending illegal migrants elsewhere is also invidious. Can you imagine the uproar there would be if it were the other way, and if Rwanda, for example, chose to send tens of thousands of its illegal migrants to the UK? There would be rioting in the streets. Migration is not going to go away. Given this, there should be binding agreements between European nations whereby they intake mutually-agreed quotas. The whole issue is a tangled web. One final thing: we need to scotch this fallacy that the UK takes more than its fair share of refugees. In 2021 there were 148,200 asylum applications in Germany, 103,800 applications in France, 62,100 in Spain, 43,900 in Italy and 37,562 in the UK.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This fella, with his unsubstantiated, (and unable to be substantiated), unverified nothings about an invisible sky God, loses all my respect for anything else he happens to say, God-themed, or otherwise. I try to stay objective and fair, but when someone, anyone, tells me they’re at the behest of this or that deity high (pie?) in the sky, and they are unable to provide a scintilla of credible evidence to shore up the extraordinary claim (see Sagan), then why should I consider anything they happen to tell me worthy of my time? As Nietzsche posited: Is man one of God’s blunders or is God one of man’s blunders? Well?😳
1
-
Alert: Jordan Peterson is seen with woman. Cue the misogynistic fanboys leaping to their hero’s defence. ‘Oh, Jordy, gobble, gobble, yes, Jordy, gobble gobble, three bags full, gobble, gobble, we’ll protect you from that horrid womanhood, gobble, gobble. Do you still want me, Jordy? Gobble, gobble.’🥸
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Shekhinah74 The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. (Richard Dawkins)
The brutal irony of this situation is that both sides believe in the same manmade, invented invisible sky daddy! Once you write this stuff down, and get a critical mass to buy into it, it’s very hard for humanity to shake, alas.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
🇧🇷 In the great GOAT debate, just for the record, Pelé didn’t officially score 1,283 goals. Pelé did score 1,283 goals, but 526 goals came in unofficial friendlies and tour games. He even counted games he played for the Sixth Coast Guard in the military competition. He officially scored 757 goals in 812 games. Moreover, strictly speaking, Pelé didn’t really ‘win’ 3 World Cups; he won 2 and a bit. Yes, he was a member of three World Cup-winning teams, but he sat out the large majority of the 1962 World Cup. All that said, he was still a terrific player, right up there in my top 5. Picking a number 1 is always an invidious task, and always depends on where and when you were born, but if I had to, yes, I’d probably pick Pelé. Just. However, if Mbappé stays healthy and motivated, I wouldn’t be surprised to be sitting here saying he’s the GOAT in 10 years’ time! ⚽️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well said. Dawkins saw this clearly: The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. I’ve never understood what possesses thinking people to subscribe to this God. It’s utterly bizarre. It can only be put down to an industrial-level brainwashing.👀
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Tamarlane389 My point? Well, since you so kindly ask: As a lifelong agnostic, I have very little time for any organised religion. However, the thing that should be said is that I feel zero threat from any organised religion, bar one. If I were a public figure and publicly castigated Jesus, or Moses, or Krishna, or Buddha, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it’s very likely nothing would happen to me. If I publicly slagged off Muhammad, it’s quite likely there’d be a backlash and I’d be watching my back for the rest of my life. That’s the difference. Just ask Salman Rushdie or the Batley teacher who, btw, didn’t even criticise Muhammad; he just showed a damn picture! Imagine living in a society where certain people are so offended by a cartoon, they threaten death to the person who showed it! If certain people are so ‘offended’ by a cartoon, then it’s time to question the belief, not the cartoon. It seems Islam is so trigger-sensitive it can’t take honest criticism, when it’s just a bunch of manmade ideas like all the rest. Never let anyone tell you it’s ‘racist’ or a ‘hate-crime’ to criticise Islam. Islam is a belief-system held by people of multifarious races. Islam seems to think it’s entitled to a free pass when it comes to scrutiny. If Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Spaghettiism, etc. are subject to criticism, then Islam is too.
I suppose that’s more or less my point, petal. 🙄
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hey, Johnny baby, which of the following, if any, do you disavow? Liberals generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion . If you are for these eminently sensible values can I politely suggest that you are the very ‘pinko liberal’ you affect to disdain! Ta da!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marcfalsetti9381 One other addendum, as I feel it’s important in this debate. I will say it straight: anyone who chooses to adopt any unquestioned and not able to be questioned religious text as their guide to get through this sublunary existence is, in my opinion, simply someone feeling powerless. For whatever reason(s), there has been a felt inadequacy with who and what they are. Therefore they look outward in search of an ‘authority’ they can latch on to, something that ‘empowers’ their, hitherto, weak sense of self. This doesn’t matter one iota if it’s kept private and doesn’t intrude into the lives of others. Alas, all organised religions cannot claim immunity when they are imputed as being something very inimical to a settled, peaceful human existence, and mutual coexistence with others. I would say this: organised religion, along with nationalism/patriotism/tribalism, has been the cause of most egregious blood-letting in human history. I’m willing to bet, correct me if I’m wrong, that you would be quite prepared to defend your unsubstantiated, and unable to be substantiated, theories to the death. What I see with those who pick this or that religion/God, are simply frightened, powerless individuals seeking something they can wield to correct and assert that perceived self-emasculation. Any philosophy/faith/religion of any stripe, that feels the need to threaten potential adherents with an everlasting eternal Hell, on pain of not buying the creed, is a belief system very, very unsure of itself. Moreover, it is incredibly dangerous for the peaceful coexistence of humanity.😉
1
-
1
-
Jordan Peterson‘s 12 more (God help us all!) rules for life - an appraisal.
Do not carelessly denigrate social institutions or creative achievement. Oh man. Come on! If I can’t slag off the mother-in-law you’ve thereby instantly removed 5% of my reason for getting up in the morning. Similarly, if I see a post-post-modern, abstract-expressionist post-impressionist painting in a gallery I reserve the right to draw a cock and balls over it. I want my artists figurative. Or at the very least, Italian.
Imagine who you could be and then aim single-mindedly at that. Hmm … I’m imagining I could be Jordan Peterson. Oh, wait. The world isn’t big enough to contain TWO identical egos that large!
Do not hide unwanted things in the fog. Especially if John Carpenter is lurking somewhere in that fog.
Notice that opportunity lurks where responsibility has been abdicated. Ok, I think that makes sense. Are you saying that if I refuse to wash the dishes and decline to put the garbage out I’m on a blow-job promise that self same evening? Sounds good to me!
Do not do what you hate. Yay! Jordan Peterson himself is telling me I don’t have to read a single thing he ever writes ever again! Thanks Jordy. 🙏
Abandon ideology. What, abandon the ‘ideology’ of condensing the incredible complexity of human life and existence into 12 cookie-cutter platitudes I once read in a bunch of fortune cookies? That ideology?
Work as hard as you possibly can on at least one thing and see what happens. Well, since the age of about 13 I’ve been actively fulfilling this injunction and it’s nearly fallen off.😳
Try to make one room in your home as beautiful as possible. Can we agree on a corner of one room? A whole room just sounds extravagant and, frankly, a waste of my time when I’ve got rule 7 to be getting on with.😳
If old memories still upset you, write them down carefully and completely. Yes, they do. However, not sure writing them down will help. Can I not just do the more obvious, sensible thing and, er, like, well, forget them?
Plan and work diligently to maintain the romance in your relationship. Yes, I buy my dick flowers at least every other Friday.
Do not allow yourself to become resentful, deceitful, or arrogant. Ha! Ya got me. While I resent no one but the milk-man who ran away with the wife back in 1987 (I’m still working through it), and I have deceived no one since that time I pretended I was Jesus at a convention of atheist/agnostics, the ‘arrogant’ one still niggles. Yes, I have to admit that when in an almighty pickle, I do sometimes think: ‘What would Donald Lamont do?’ Sorry.
Be grateful in spite of your suffering. Well, one of my avatars kinda said this about 2,600 years before Saint Jordan palmed it off as one of his own. But hey! plagiarism never hurt anybody when you’re trying to fool most of the people most of the time!😁
Note: Jordan Peterson will publish 12 more rules for life when he’s spent all the money he got from gullible fools buying the first 24. 🤔
1
-
1
-
Jordan Peterson’s 12 rules for life - an appraisal.
Stand up straight with your shoulders straight. Unless you’re a peeping Tom and need to keep below that wall, otherwise that gorgeous, undressing next-door neighbour may spot you.
Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping. In other words, pick up your own smelly socks, don’t litter, and make your own fucking bed!
Befriend people who want the best for you. Well, this rests on your judgement of others’ character. If that’s shit, you’re fucked.
Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not the useless person you are today. This one totally contradicts the whole idea of self-improvement, for if I’m more useless today than I was yesterday, why am I even trying to self-improve?!
Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them. Well, this assumes that you’re such an insane parental control freak with such a fascistic sense of keeping another in order that it’s not even worth considering, if only to save your own soul. Besides, kids need to make their own mistakes, so tough-titty if the parents can’t take this.
Set your house in order before criticising the world. Well, if you’re a saint, perhaps. If you’re a messy flesh and blood human being then criticising the world is what gets most of us through the day, if the drugs aren’t working.
Pursue what is meaningful, not what is expedient. Yeah, but that makes the enormous, unfounded assumption that any of this means anything whatsoever.
Tell the truth, or at least don’t lie. I’m sorry, but that time my mother caught my porn stash under the bed, I had to lie and pin it on my twin brother, Tommy. Sometimes, lying just is the best policy and those who say otherwise are just liars.
Assume the person you are listening to knows something you don’t. Ok. But this one falls down when it comes to my bank PIN number.
Be precise in your speech. What ‘precise’ in one’s speech like Mr Jordan ‘why use 1 word when 21 will do?’ Peterson? Give me the conciseness of a Sam Harris any day. I’m sure Adam Sandler will concur.
Do not bother children while they are skateboarding. Unless, that is, they are skateboarding all over your prize flowerbeds; then you can not only ‘bother’ them, but collar them and let them feel your hot garlicky breath on their cheeks.
Pet a cat when you encounter one in the street. Unless, that is, the cat is frothing alarmingly at the mouth.
Now where’s my publishing deal?😳
1
-
Atheism, a ‘failed father’? How so? Just because one is an atheist/agnostic, this does not intrinsically determine whether one is a social/moral/political ‘failure’, as you term it. You seem to be politicising the term ‘atheism’ and assuming all of them are leftist/liberals. I’m aware of many atheist/agnostics of multifarious stripes politically, some conservative, some liberal, some socialist, some none of these. Fry’s simply making the point, as I see it, that his ‘empiricism’ has lead him to decide that there is no God. You have labelled yourself as a ‘Christian Conservative’. Any reasonably educated man (eg Fry) can see how you might have empirically/rationally come to be the Conservative part of that epithet; that same man, however, has difficulty understanding on empirical/rational grounds how you came to the ‘Christian’ part. Everything Fry said here concerning this was sound. Rather, as I watched, it was Peterson who offered next to nothing as to why he has chosen to hold a belief that there is a God.👿
1
-
@marcfalsetti9381 ‘The constants of God and the Bible are the reference points I personally use as my map towards the pursuit of righteousness and truth.’ Really? Have you looked closely and with any notion of a critical faculty at your God of the Old Testament recently? The God that is the ‘father’ (allegedly) of your personal saviour? Anyone, believer or non-believer, cannot, in my opinion, read the Old Testament and read about the nature of the character of God therein, and not be struck by something. This is, that that God is a quite horrendously brutal character, however way you want to cut it. I’m no particular fan of Richard Dawkins (a debate for another day), but, in my view, he was 100% spot on about his take on this Old Testament God: The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. Now, Fry, for example, has used his empiricism, that is read this text, and seems to have come to the conclusion that this will not do. I happen to agree with him, although I am not an atheist. Fry, no doubt, has also interrogated the traditional ‘proofs’ cited for the existence of a God (personal or otherwise) and found them wanting. These proofs (Aquinas’ 5 ways) being : the unmoved mover, first cause, necessary being, argument from degree, and the teleological argument. Also in all this, I would question why and how individuals choose to believe in a given religion. Why, for instance, are you not praying to Mecca? After all, the God of Islam is yours. Why, for instance, are you not attending the Jewish temple on a regular basis? After all, the God of Judaism is yours. Wider than this. If you believe in a God, why not the God(s) of the Hindu tradition? Why, indeed, aren’t you following the Norse gods, or the Greek gods, or the Egyptian gods? I would suggest that you opted for the barbaric deity of the Old Testament is due to an accident of birth and the tradition you were/are culturally swimming in. If you had been born in Baghdad, you would be defending, more than likely, the Islamic version of your God. If you had been born in Tokyo, this conversation would, more than likely, be centred around the Buddhist or the Shinto religious inheritance. I hope you see my point. You have, as far as I can determine, opted to put your eggs in the Christian basket (case?) and the God of the Old/New Testament. You have opted for believing, something which is wholly your prerogative, in someone for which beyond the self-contradictory gospels, there is scanty historical evidence. But, for me, a non-atheist, and empiricist, you have chosen as your ‘map towards the pursuit of righteousness and truth’, a God of the quite most repulsive nature, on any dispassionate, unbiased reading, one could possibly imagine. As I say, this is your right.☀️
1
-
@marcfalsetti9381 A book with about 40 authors, cobbled together over 1500 years or so, is, with the best will in the world, not a book I can put much credence in, if you expect me to believe it in toto the ‘word of God’. No, for me, I cannot get beyond the sanguinary, revolting nature of the character therein we are expected to love/fear. (<A contradiction right there if ever I heard one). I am not willing to jettison my critical faculties and be browbeaten into believing something and someone so grotesquely nasty and vicious. Jesus? Well, as I said, after extensive research throughout my life, my conclusion is that he never historically existed. As I say, beyond the terribly self-contradictory and unreliable gospels there are a couple of nebulous mentions in the Judeo-Roman historical chronicles, but that’s not enough. The bottom line for me is you earn my love and respect. The Old Testament God singularly fails in this task. You, if I may say so, simply fit the pattern I outlined in my previous post, that is, swimming in the pre-ordained religious waters you were randomly born into. This, for me, is the single biggest reason you chose the Bible as your book of choice in the market of religious texts. You chose, as a Catholic, the one you were most familiar with. I repeat, if you had been born elsewhere on this planet, somewhere where Christianity is a minority religion, I’m willing to bet very good money you would be telling me your God was A.N. Other. And I’ve never placed a bet in my entire life! Anyway, all the best.✌️
1
-
Jordan Peterson‘s 12 more (God help us all!) rules for life - an appraisal.
Do not carelessly denigrate social institutions or creative achievement. Oh man. Come on! If I can’t slag off the mother-in-law you’ve thereby instantly removed 5% of my reason for getting up in the morning. Similarly, if I see a post-post-modern, abstract-expressionist post-impressionist painting in a gallery I reserve the right to draw a cock and balls over it. I want my artists figurative. Or at the very least, Italian.
Imagine who you could be and then aim single-mindedly at that. Hmm … I’m imagining I could be Jordan Peterson. Oh, wait. The world isn’t big enough to contain TWO identical egos that large!
Do not hide unwanted things in the fog. Especially if John Carpenter is lurking somewhere in that fog.
Notice that opportunity lurks where responsibility has been abdicated. Ok, I think that makes sense. Are you saying that if I refuse to wash the dishes and decline to put the garbage out I’m on a blow-job promise that self same evening? Sounds good to me!
Do not do what you hate. Yay! Jordan Peterson himself is telling me I don’t have to read a single thing he ever writes ever again! Thanks Jordy. 🙏
Abandon ideology. What, abandon the ‘ideology’ of condensing the incredible complexity of human life and existence into 12 cookie-cutter platitudes I once read in a bunch of fortune cookies? That ideology?
Work as hard as you possibly can on at least one thing and see what happens. Well, since the age of about 13 I’ve been actively fulfilling this injunction and it’s nearly fallen off.😳
Try to make one room in your home as beautiful as possible. Can we agree on a corner of one room? A whole room just sounds extravagant and, frankly, a waste of my time when I’ve got rule 7 to be getting on with.😳
If old memories still upset you, write them down carefully and completely. Yes, they do. However, not sure writing them down will help. Can I not just do the more obvious, sensible thing and, er, like, well, forget them?
Plan and work diligently to maintain the romance in your relationship. Yes, I buy my dick flowers at least every other Friday.
Do not allow yourself to become resentful, deceitful, or arrogant. Ha! Ya got me. While I resent no one but the milk-man who ran away with the wife back in 1987 (I’m still working through it), and I have deceived no one since that time I pretended I was Jesus at a convention of atheist/agnostics, the ‘arrogant’ one still niggles. Yes, I have to admit that when in an almighty pickle, I do sometimes think: ‘What would Donald Lamont do?’ Sorry.
Be grateful in spite of your suffering. Well, one of my avatars kinda said this about 2,600 years before Saint Jordan palmed it off as one of his own. But hey! plagiarism never hurt anybody when you’re trying to fool most of the people most of the time!😁
Note: Jordan Peterson will publish 12 more rules for life when he’s spent all the money he got from gullible fools buying the first 24. 🤔
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marcfalsetti9381 I fear you’re a tad unhinged, dear fellow. I was curious. I did some due diligence. Checked out your Facebook page. As I had feared. The stereotype par excellence of the militant (‘I am right, you are all wrong, and what’s more, damned to eternal Hell for being wrong!’) It’s just boring, man. You and your rigid claptrap ain’t gettin’ me jivin’, man. I have met with your type since I was knee-high to a grasshopper, and there’s no debating with you. You’re in a trance and until that spell is broken, then there is no hope for reasonable debate. Smoke on this little quotable doobie from Steven Weinberg and then I’m done: With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion. Just for the record, I’m not an atheist, something you have singularly failed to establish throughout this interlocution. Think on, but stay away from anything that matters, as you’re akin to a toddler with a box of matches in a nitroglycerin factory. ☀️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jordan Peterson‘s 12 more (God help us all!) rules for life - an appraisal.
Do not carelessly denigrate social institutions or creative achievement. Oh man. Come on! If I can’t slag off the mother-in-law you’ve thereby instantly removed 5% of my reason for getting up in the morning. Similarly, if I see a post-post-modern, abstract-expressionist post-impressionist painting in a gallery I reserve the right to draw a cock and balls over it. I want my artists figurative. Or at the very least, Italian.
Imagine who you could be and then aim single-mindedly at that. Hmm … I’m imagining I could be Jordan Peterson. Oh, wait. The world isn’t big enough to contain TWO identical egos that large!
Do not hide unwanted things in the fog. Especially if John Carpenter is lurking somewhere in that fog.
Notice that opportunity lurks where responsibility has been abdicated. Ok, I think that makes sense. Are you saying that if I refuse to wash the dishes and decline to put the garbage out I’m on a blow-job promise that self same evening? Sounds good to me!
Do not do what you hate. Yay! Jordan Peterson himself is telling me I don’t have to read a single thing he ever writes ever again! Thanks Jordy. 🙏
Abandon ideology. What, abandon the ‘ideology’ of condensing the incredible complexity of human life and existence into 12 cookie-cutter platitudes I once read in a bunch of fortune cookies? That ideology?
Work as hard as you possibly can on at least one thing and see what happens. Well, since the age of about 13 I’ve been actively fulfilling this injunction and it’s nearly fallen off.😳
Try to make one room in your home as beautiful as possible. Can we agree on a corner of one room? A whole room just sounds extravagant and, frankly, a waste of my time when I’ve got rule 7 to be getting on with.😳
If old memories still upset you, write them down carefully and completely. Yes, they do. However, not sure writing them down will help. Can I not just do the more obvious, sensible thing and, er, like, well, forget them?
Plan and work diligently to maintain the romance in your relationship. Yes, I buy my dick flowers at least every other Friday.
Do not allow yourself to become resentful, deceitful, or arrogant. Ha! Ya got me. While I resent no one but the milk-man who ran away with the wife back in 1987 (I’m still working through it), and I have deceived no one since that time I pretended I was Jesus at a convention of atheist/agnostics, the ‘arrogant’ one still niggles. Yes, I have to admit that when in an almighty pickle, I do sometimes think: ‘What would Donald Lamont do?’ Sorry.
Be grateful in spite of your suffering. Well, one of my avatars kinda said this about 2,600 years before Saint Jordan palmed it off as one of his own. But hey! plagiarism never hurt anybody when you’re trying to fool most of the people most of the time!😁
Note: Jordan Peterson will publish 12 more rules for life when he’s spent all the money he got from gullible fools buying the first 24. 🤔
1
-
1
-
1
-
My main issue is not with Peterson himself (I agree with much of what he says, leaving aside the God nonsense, which he himself almost guiltily, shamefacedly promulgates when asked about), no, my main issue is with the nauseating, sycophantic fanboys (and occasional girl) who leap to even the teeniest, tiniest criticism of him and his ideas like a pack of rabid dogs for hire. It’s hilarious and sick-inducing simultaneously; almost as if they have been hypnotised into believing Peterson cannot possibly be wrong about anything , and anyone who suggests he is, must be shot-down, silenced. Ironically, the very thing they claim ‘woke’ culture does to Peterson himself. All very bizarre.😳
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brandonoftroy5030 Really? You’re watching a different guy from me then, and I’m not an atheist. Harris is an empiricist, so he’s going to need some pretty good stuff for him to countenance the idea of a God, let alone a personal God. Peterson is, frankly, an embarrassment to himself, and to other theists concerning the God question. His woolly, unthought-out, pitiful ‘defence’ for the existence of a God is risible. He’s also egregiously disingenuous on this score as he attempts to have his cake and eat it, for he says he doesn’t believe in God per se, but he ‘acts as if God exists’. Well, sorry, but this nebulous, immature thinking will not do. He doesn’t even make a pretence of broaching the traditional arguments for God’s existence: he just blithely declares ‘I act as if God exists’. It’s the type of thinking worthy of a 10 year old. No wonder the likes of Harris, and countless others, have little patience with Peterson’s brand of theism.🤓
1
-
1
-
Jordan Peterson’s 12 rules for life - an appraisal.
Stand up straight with your shoulders straight. Unless you’re a peeping Tom and need to keep below that wall, otherwise that gorgeous, undressing next-door neighbour may spot you.
Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping. In other words, pick up your own smelly socks, don’t litter, and make your own fucking bed!
Befriend people who want the best for you. Well, this rests on your judgement of others’ character. If that’s shit, you’re fucked.
Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not the useless person you are today. This one totally contradicts the whole idea of self-improvement, for if I’m more useless today than I was yesterday, why am I even trying to self-improve?!
Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them. Well, this assumes that you’re such an insane parental control freak with such a fascistic sense of keeping another in order that it’s not even worth considering, if only to save your own soul. Besides, kids need to make their own mistakes, so tough-titty if the parents can’t take this.
Set your house in order before criticising the world. Well, if you’re a saint, perhaps. If you’re a messy flesh and blood human being then criticising the world is what gets most of us through the day, if the drugs aren’t working.
Pursue what is meaningful, not what is expedient. Yeah, but that makes the enormous, unfounded assumption that any of this means anything whatsoever.
Tell the truth, or at least don’t lie. I’m sorry, but that time my mother caught my porn stash under the bed, I had to lie and pin it on my twin brother, Tommy. Sometimes, lying just is the best policy and those who say otherwise are just liars.
Assume the person you are listening to knows something you don’t. Ok. But this one falls down when it comes to my bank PIN number.
Be precise in your speech. What ‘precise’ in one’s speech like Mr Jordan ‘why use 1 word when 21 will do?’ Peterson? Give me the conciseness of a Sam Harris any day. I’m sure Adam Sandler will concur.
Do not bother children while they are skateboarding. Unless, that is, they are skateboarding all over your prize flowerbeds; then you can not only ‘bother’ them, but collar them and let them feel your hot garlicky breath on their cheeks.
Pet a cat when you encounter one in the street. Unless, that is, the cat is frothing alarmingly at the mouth.
Now where’s my publishing deal?😳
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And as Barnes pointed out, it looks like the amount of refugees countries process more or less tallies with what they can cope with in terms of size and population: In 2021 there were 148,200 asylum applications in Germany, 103,800 applications in France, 62,100 in Spain, 43,900 in Italy and 37,562 in the UK. Argument not quite ended, sunshine. Nice try, though. 😉
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1