Cameron The Liar - lets his mask slip again

[crazyg]

Is this some sort of orchestrated Campaign against me?

You're always the brains of the operation.

That should be double points by the way, that's a pun within a pun.

Are we playing Guess Who now?

I'll start: Is he a knob (or just rich)?

 

[Chris in London]

They've got a monopoly on law enforcement.

Fucking Bluemoon. Puns start popping up, guess who's entered the thread...

When he's bored games like this start being played<br /><br />-- Thu Apr 24, 2014 7:32 am --<br /><br />

I don't get what I'm supposed to be angry at.

Politician is disingenuous and economical with truth, whilst presenting pious, self serving and misleading image of self.

In other news, bear shits in wood, world keeps turning and pope uses Easter Sunday address to announce his adherence to Catholicism

But it was "David Cameron's office" rather than "David Cameron".

If some of the admin people I have employed in staff would be called upon to represent me then I'd probably be locked up.

I thought about raising an argument based on the doctrine of vicarious responsibility but decided in favour of simply making a bad pun

 

[Blue Til Death]

Vote this joker out at what ever cost possible - even if it means voting Labour!!!

Straight question. Would you fuck it?

Only with a Kango..... in the face..!

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Vote this joker out at what ever cost possible - even if it means voting Labour!!!

Ooooooooooh Look................its David Cameron's cousin (I kid you not)

 

[Gillespie]

So we are agreed half the people (50%) are below median intelligence. Super.

Gillespie, you failed to address my points but we were digressing. My first and main point was the fact that just because a delegation were from the church makes them no more important than if they were from the local crown green bowling club.

At no point have I inferred that religious folk are less intelligent. I have remained steadfast in my claim that argumentum ad populum is bollocks.

As for whether intelligent people are more or less religious by and large, that's not for me to say. Although 80% of Americans are religious against 18% of American scientists. But as I say, we digress.

I dealt with your points. Actually, you have failed to address some of mine and to the extent you have, you wilfully misconstrued them in order to argue against something I didn't say. Straw man arguments as I said.

I agree that insofar as politics is concerned a delegation from the church is no more qualified per se than any other lobbying group.

Argumentum ad populum is as you say an illogical rhetorical device when used to prove a case. However, I wasn't trying to prove the existence of God based upon the majority of Britons believing in a deity but merely asking you to show some tolerance to them whether you agree with them or not.

For someone protesting against the use of illogical fallacies, your last statement comparing religious Americans to American scientists is a classic non sequitur (i.e. yet another illogical fallacy) and coming from you, risible to boot.

 

[SWP's back]

Is it hell as like a nonsequitur. It shows that as education increases, faith decreases across a populace. I can pull all sorts of studies off the bet for that one if needs be. (Currently awaiting a client in a coffee house so on my phone).

But anyway, in your post, you have agreed with my first point, a church delegation are no more important than anyone else.

I still don't see why anyone should show more tolerance to a group, just because it is popular though. In your warped logic, it probably makes sense, but I as repeatedly state, I don't accept anything just because it is popular.

 

[aguero93:20]

Is it hell as like a nonsequitur. It shows that as education increases, faith decreases across a populace. I can pull all sorts of studies off the bet for that one if needs be. (Currently awaiting a client in a coffee house so on my phone).

But anyway, in your post, you have agreed with my first point, a church delegation are no more important than anyone else.

I still don't see why anyone should show more tolerance to a group, just because it is popular though. In your warped logic, it probably makes sense, but I as repeatedly state, I don't accept anything just because it is popular.

The original point of the article was that Cameron left a message in the Church readings about all the time he was going to take to listen to the church in his local area (load of shite anyway, secular state, so people's views should count and not religious ones) and then pulled what he did, not that a religious group had more rights. Ergo the title - "Cameron The Liar" not "Cameron The Heretic" or some such.

 

[Gillespie]

Is it hell as like a nonsequitur. It shows that as education increases, faith decreases across a populace. I can pull all sorts of studies off the bet for that one if needs be. (Currently awaiting a client in a coffee house so on my phone).

But anyway, in your post, you have agreed with my first point, a church delegation are no more important than anyone else.

I still don't see why anyone should show more tolerance to a group, just because it is popular though. In your warped logic, it probably makes sense, but I as repeatedly state, I don't accept anything just because it is popular.

So, your theory is that faith decreases as education increases? And to support this you state:

' Although 80% of Americans are religious against 18% of American scientists.'

It doesn't really explain how 80% of Americans (who are comparatively well educated)are religious, does it? As for 18% of Americans being scientists, assuming that's true, I don't see the relevance frankly which is why I rightly called it a non sequitur. You sound like someone who has just read a bluffers guide to rhetoric but failed to read one on logic. You clearly cannot discriminate between correlation and causation.

Good for you again banging on about how steadfast you are in your own beliefs regardless of how unpopular they might be. All irrelevant stuff. None of this is about popularity or unpopularity. It's about having decency in being able to tolerate your fellow man regardless of their views.

My point in showing tolerance to those who have beliefs you don't share is that it's a mark of decency and being civilised. Christian values of respect, compassion and tolerance. The fact that there are those who commit atrocities in the name of faith doesn't change the basic values taught by Christ. By all means condemn the sinner but not the lesson.

 

[aguero93:20]

Is it hell as like a nonsequitur. It shows that as education increases, faith decreases across a populace. I can pull all sorts of studies off the bet for that one if needs be. (Currently awaiting a client in a coffee house so on my phone).

But anyway, in your post, you have agreed with my first point, a church delegation are no more important than anyone else.

I still don't see why anyone should show more tolerance to a group, just because it is popular though. In your warped logic, it probably makes sense, but I as repeatedly state, I don't accept anything just because it is popular.

So, your theory is that faith decreases as education increases? And to support this you state:

' Although 80% of Americans are religious against 18% of American scientists.'

It doesn't really explain how 80% of Americans (who are comparatively well educated)are religious, does it? As for 18% of Americans being scientists, assuming that's true, I don't see the relevance frankly which is why I rightly called it a non sequitur. You sound like someone who has just read a bluffers guide to rhetoric but failed to read one on logic. You clearly cannot discriminate between correlation and causation.

Good for you again banging on about how steadfast you are in your own beliefs regardless of how unpopular they might be. All irrelevant stuff. None of this is about popularity or unpopularity. It's about having decency in being able to tolerate your fellow man regardless of their views.

My point in showing tolerance to those who have beliefs you don't share is that it's a mark of decency and being civilised. Christian values of respect, compassion and tolerance. The fact that there are those who commit atrocities in the name of faith doesn't change the basic values taught by Christ. By all means condemn the sinner but not the lesson.

Stopped reading after that mate, their overall education levels are astoundingly bad.

 

[Gillespie]

Is it hell as like a nonsequitur. It shows that as education increases, faith decreases across a populace. I can pull all sorts of studies off the bet for that one if needs be. (Currently awaiting a client in a coffee house so on my phone).

But anyway, in your post, you have agreed with my first point, a church delegation are no more important than anyone else.

I still don't see why anyone should show more tolerance to a group, just because it is popular though. In your warped logic, it probably makes sense, but I as repeatedly state, I don't accept anything just because it is popular.

So, your theory is that faith decreases as education increases? And to support this you state:

' Although 80% of Americans are religious against 18% of American scientists.'

It doesn't really explain how 80% of Americans (who are comparatively well educated)are religious, does it? As for 18% of Americans being scientists, assuming that's true, I don't see the relevance frankly which is why I rightly called it a non sequitur. You sound like someone who has just read a bluffers guide to rhetoric but failed to read one on logic. You clearly cannot discriminate between correlation and causation.

Good for you again banging on about how steadfast you are in your own beliefs regardless of how unpopular they might be. All irrelevant stuff. None of this is about popularity or unpopularity. It's about having decency in being able to tolerate your fellow man regardless of their views.

My point in showing tolerance to those who have beliefs you don't share is that it's a mark of decency and being civilised. Christian values of respect, compassion and tolerance. The fact that there are those who commit atrocities in the name of faith doesn't change the basic values taught by Christ. By all means condemn the sinner but not the lesson.

Stopped reading after that mate, their overall education levels are astoundingly bad.

As compared to whom? I trust you can't be suggesting that somehow our state educational standards are any better?