CPFC BBS

CPFC BBS (https://www.cpfc.org/forums/index.php)
-   The Politics Forum (https://www.cpfc.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=58)
-   -   Tommy Robinson possible MEP? Split Thread (https://www.cpfc.org/forums/showthread.php?t=278621)

Hpalace 03-05-2019 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by in-exile (Post 14748979)
It's WRONG to judge anybody by their religion ... Try to get a LEVEL playing field.

That’s just silly. If a brand of religion be it Christian or otherwise does mental stuff in the name of their religion it’s perfectly acceptable to call them wankers. What is frustrating is Christians have lots of nutter brands of their religion but the uk public don’t blame Christianity, while (as rednblue so conveniently showed earlier) Islam has many tolerant brands members of the uk public tarnish Islam by the actions of the few wanker brands.

It’s not a level playing field for that reason. Secondly we should judge people by their brand of religion if they are willing to murder people for it. Just don’t judge those that also think that that brand are wankers and tarnish the entire religion.

in-exile 03-05-2019 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hpalace (Post 14748985)
Thatís just silly. If a brand of religion be it Christian or otherwise does mental stuff in the name of their religion itís perfectly acceptable to call them wankers. What is frustrating is Christians have lots of nutter brands of their religion but the uk public donít blame Christianity, while (as rednblue so conveniently showed earlier) Islam has many tolerant brands members of the uk public tarnish Islam by the actions of the few wanker brands.

Itís not a level playing field for that reason. Secondly we should judge people by their brand of religion if they are willing to murder people for it. Just donít judge those that also think that that brand are wankers and tarnish the entire religion.

ramblings....

Hpalace 03-05-2019 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by in-exile (Post 14748991)
ramblings....

Above your comprehension more like :p

in-exile 03-05-2019 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hpalace (Post 14748993)
Above your comprehension more like :p

Yes I'm not a psychologist in an institution! :bash:

Hpalace 03-05-2019 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by in-exile (Post 14748995)
Yes I'm not a psychologist in an institution! :bash:

Definitely not a psychologist in one anyway ...

If you cannot comprehend that each religion has several off shoots and they each operate independently while being classed as Ďoneí then I might as well carry on this conversation with my fridge. Itís just as knowledgable :p

in-exile 03-05-2019 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hpalace (Post 14749000)
Definitely not a psychologist in one anyway ...

If you cannot comprehend that each religion has several off shoots and they each operate independently while being classed as Ďoneí then I might as well carry on this conversation with my fridge. Itís just as knowledgable :p

Less chaotic a post ....well done you.

Hpalace 03-05-2019 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by in-exile (Post 14749003)
Less chaotic a post ....well done you.

Again I canít help you if lots of words in a paragraph confuse you. This isnít a ladybird book.

Salad_Burnet 03-05-2019 09:47 PM

I find the paradox of not tolerating the intolerant a bit bull-shitty, I have to say. It sounds very arbitrary as the poster who pointed out the example of Saudi Arabia beheading loads of people pointed out. And it assumes a position of being all-powerful too - so it's loaded with hubris.

Hpalace 03-05-2019 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salad_Burnet (Post 14749021)
I find the paradox of not tolerating the intolerant a bit bull-shitty, I have to say. It sounds very arbitrary as the poster who pointed out the example of Saudi Arabia beheading loads of people pointed out. And it assumes a position of being all-powerful too - so it's loaded with hubris.

You canít use the paradox in Saudi though as an authoritarian regime has control. You can in the uk - where there isnít an authoritarian regime mainly to ensure we donít get one.

Thatís the point of the paradox.

redandblue 04-05-2019 05:27 AM

The view of the Muslim religion in this country or otherwise towards homosexuality shows tolerance does it ? I have never met a Muslim I donít like and I certainly donít agree with TR and his vile politics.

However a people who support a religion that has intolerance towards certain other sects of society is not where the yardstick for tolerance should be held this is my view and this is the point I put across.

Dr Mags 04-05-2019 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by in-exile (Post 14748975)
Good.


So that with their obnoxious behaviour they can make Britain look even
more ridiculous than it already does.

Reps AJ 04-05-2019 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redandblue (Post 14749077)
The view of the Muslim religion in this country or otherwise towards homosexuality shows tolerance does it ? I have never met a Muslim I donít like and I certainly donít agree with TR and his vile politics.

However a people who support a religion that has intolerance towards certain other sects of society is not where the yardstick for tolerance should be held this is my view and this is the point I put across.

When can we start slating christians based on the antics of the Westboro Baptist Church?

rhino_mik 04-05-2019 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redandblue (Post 14748905)
Yes the intolerance levels have been well set in Saudi Arabia regarding gay people, people who fancy a tipple or a bit of hows your father outside of marriage, or people who want to doodle their prophet or have different religious views.

Not sure that people who follow a religion that has such little,tolerance of people who donít share their views are the best to decide where intolerance lines should be drawn .

Not all Muslims think the way you have just described.

olly cromwell 04-05-2019 06:04 AM

I was quite frankly amazed when UKIP allowed Neil Hamilton to join and even more so when he entered the Welsh assembly, the Tommy Robinson decision beggars belief from a political party hoping to win votes
Had they actually focussed on what they were supposed to be, namely a pro brexit party they might have done quite well but I am quite amazed by the decision of an allegedly pro brexit party to even go down the muslim / Tommy Robinson route
Quite frankly they got precisely what they deserved, given that the local elections were dominated by brexit this was a serious wtf moment

ebyeeckeagle 04-05-2019 08:51 AM

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...cheshire-event

But you know, Muslims are the problem. Not this violent fascist **** and his yobs. Anyone voting UKIP is supporting this type of violence.

rhino_mik 04-05-2019 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by olly cromwell (Post 14749094)
I was quite frankly amazed when UKIP allowed Neil Hamilton to join and even more so when he entered the Welsh assembly, the Tommy Robinson decision beggars belief from a political party hoping to win votes
Had they actually focussed on what they were supposed to be, namely a pro brexit party they might have done quite well but I am quite amazed by the decision of an allegedly pro brexit party to even go down the muslim / Tommy Robinson route
Quite frankly they got precisely what they deserved, given that the local elections were dominated by brexit this was a serious wtf moment

UKIP were always a little bit racist. Hiring Yaxley Lennon just removed all doubt.

chelmsfordeagle 09-05-2019 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhino_mik (Post 14750503)
UKIP were always a little bit racist. Hiring Yaxley Lennon just removed all doubt.

Absolutely, people just liked to pretend they weren't so they could feel OK about voting for them.

dogstar721 09-05-2019 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salad_Burnet (Post 14749021)
I find the paradox of not tolerating the intolerant a bit bull-shitty, I have to say. It sounds very arbitrary as the poster who pointed out the example of Saudi Arabia beheading loads of people pointed out. And it assumes a position of being all-powerful too - so it's loaded with hubris.

Its only a linguistic paradox of the English language being so positional in it definition (something is or isn't). Realistically it would be absurd to expect people to be tolerant of intolerant people and it would be an inhuman situation to adopt such a position.

I'm fairly liberal in my outlook, and have a generally tolerant view, but I draw a line at extending common curtesy to those who would oppress others or reject the freedom of people to make decisions about their own life. F**k those people I've no tolerance for those who would unreasonable dictate the lifestyle and choices of other consenting adults. Let alone those who believe they should be punished or killed for being themselves. I'm also quite happy that such people end up being persecuted for believing themselves the true moral guardian of others.

Sooner or later, no matter how liberal or tolerant you are, you'll come to a conclusion that some people aren't worth tolerating and need to be opposed by all means

dogstar721 09-05-2019 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhino_mik (Post 14750503)
UKIP were always a little bit racist. Hiring Yaxley Lennon just removed all doubt.

Definitely, the general feel of UKIP was that it wasn't so much racist, as prone to people who generally say 'I'm not a racist but....' and who actually tended to have friends 'who are different'.

But they did have generally reasonable political grounds: i.e. UK membership of the European Union.

Now, they're pandering to low rent fascists and popular-nationalist nonsense in order to remain relevant. The New Farage party is pretty much the same - spouting bollocks about betrayal and treason, when the government is actively trying to achieve the result of the referendum (something they know they will never actually have to deliver on).

The only real difference between the New UKIP and the Old UKIP, is that the older leader had personality and some charm.

Conspiracy theories, hyperbole and out right lies is what they peddle in - because they know they will only ever be a protest vote to those frustrated and disillusioned to which they can offer promises of candy floss and unicorns because they'll never need to actually do anything.

TAK 27-05-2019 05:17 PM

Well that went well Stephen.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...on-count-early


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.