Shootings in Paris

[johnny on the spot]

BBC reporting three killed in a counter-terror raid in Belgium.

 

[Anonymous]

So Whelan's comments that Jews chase money more than most weren't racist then?

Hang on.

I said Jews were a race and you said that was bollocks.

The Jews are a set apart though. You can be a non-religious or atheist Jew. You'd still be ethnically a Jew, hence my point regarding te nazis not giving a shite if they were practicing or not and that the nazis tried to wipe out the Jewish race for racist ideological reasons. However you can't be an atheist Muslim or atheist Christian. That wouldn't make any sense.

You're a smart bloke and you are well aware of that. I think you are just playing silly buggers with the above.

No I'm not. I don't recognise the term "ethnically Jewish". I'm ethnically British, bring born in Britain to British parents. However, by dint of the fact that my mother was the product of Jewish parents, who married in a recognised synagogue in a legal and religious ceremony, and who herself took part in a similar ceremony before I was born, I am considered to be automatically Jewish. Whether I choose to believe in the religion and practice it is an entirely different matter. Even if I were to die choking on a bacon butty, I would still be buried as a Jew. Whereas there is, I understand, no such linear basis in Islam and Christianity. As pointed out, I may share my DNA with 80% of other Jews but that does not mean I have anything else in common with them.

And I consider racism to be something that can be directed against a distinct group, whether that distinction is based on race, ethnicity or religion.

 

[Metal Biker]

You have been filed under genocide!.

Not very mature are you.

It was a joke from earlier in the thread (Aguero93:20) has to take the credit.

No, you're just not very mature, as evident by your response prior to this one.

If you ask several questions expect several answers. Your form of nitpicking responses again only serves to highlight your immaturity further.
Name calling and instigations won't get you very far or earn your opinions much respect. You've certainly lost mine.

 

[scotty123]

BBC reporting three killed in a counter-terror raid in Belgium.

Some of the missing 6 from the Paris Islamic terrorist cell, I wonder!

 

[johnmc]

You can't say there are 5000 honour killings in the world (whilst implying it is a unique phenomenon to the Muslim communities around the world), then when challenged on this, say "although I concede the numbers are unlikely to be accurate". That's the biggest load of bllocks ever.

I been on this thread all day. You challenged me earlier on something relating to homosexuality. I answered that and since then several other points have been levelled at me, which I feel I have answered.

You obviously have everything all worked out. All of your ill informed prejudices lined up in neat little rows like chess pieces. Ready to bring them into play whenever the previous piece is quickly removed from the board.

Those are the figures widely used but it is very likely the number is much higher. You yourself have used figures that are likely to be inaccurate in posts so not sure why its ok for you to do so then? I did challenge you on your belief homosexuality is a choice, and I would discuss further only you said it was off topic (and you knew you were talking nonsense) and asked to drop it, so I did. You hardly answered it. So I moved onto another topic. This thread has had many topics discussed, I didnt realise you were the authority on what could be discussed and by whom.

I don't have anything worked out, and I don't profess to. Part of the reason I come on here is to learn more and if my viewpoint is skewwed or wrong I can often find that out on here. BUT, given that your own views are clearly clouded, and one of these views seems to be homosexuality could be a choice, it is difficult to take what you say with any credibility.

I never said it was my belief homosexuality was a choice. I said I wasn't aware of any definitive evidence that was universally accepted to prove or disprove "are you born gay". Does that make me a homophobe?. No it doesn't.

Show me where I said this?.

You're trying to railroad me into a discussion on homosexuality. Probably to try and out me (no pun intended) as a homophobe. You were struggling to keep up and tried to steer me elsewhere.

I have no issue with homosexuality. If you want to start a thread debating "are you born gay", do so, I may even join in if you like.

I've added the posts below which clearly refute your wide of the mark accusations. Read them slowly so you can absorb my answers.

Sorry. Are you saying you are not sure whether someone is born gay or chooses to be?

I'm not bothered either way, but as you ask, I am not aware of definitive evidence (that is universally accepted) that gives definitive proof that somebody is "born gay".

I wouldn't care to comment either way as this isn't what we're discussing in this thread. I would also have to do some serious research into the matter before commenting. I guess by definition I would find information relating to sexual preference (choice) and information relating to sexual orientation (predetermined). I never have done any serious research into this as it isn't a subject that has any bearing on my life.

I hope that clears that up.

Doesn't clear anything up other than your ignorance.

 

[Anonymous]

Not very mature are you.

It was a joke from earlier in the thread (Aguero93:20) has to take the credit.

No, you're just not very mature, as evident by your response prior to this one.

If you ask several questions expect several answers. Your form of nitpicking responses again only serves to highlight your immaturity further.
Name calling and instigations won't get you very far or earn your opinions much respect. You've certainly lost mine.

I don't post for respect and care not if yours is not given.

 

[Metal Biker]

It was a joke from earlier in the thread (Aguero93:20) has to take the credit.

No, you're just not very mature, as evident by your response prior to this one.

If you ask several questions expect several answers. Your form of nitpicking responses again only serves to highlight your immaturity further.
Name calling and instigations won't get you very far or earn your opinions much respect. You've certainly lost mine.

I don't post for respect and care not if yours is not given.

Then I hope you're happy in your ignorance.
I for one will not hold anything you post on this topic with any regard from here on in.

 

[Anonymous]

Those are the figures widely used but it is very likely the number is much higher. You yourself have used figures that are likely to be inaccurate in posts so not sure why its ok for you to do so then? I did challenge you on your belief homosexuality is a choice, and I would discuss further only you said it was off topic (and you knew you were talking nonsense) and asked to drop it, so I did. You hardly answered it. So I moved onto another topic. This thread has had many topics discussed, I didnt realise you were the authority on what could be discussed and by whom.

I don't have anything worked out, and I don't profess to. Part of the reason I come on here is to learn more and if my viewpoint is skewwed or wrong I can often find that out on here. BUT, given that your own views are clearly clouded, and one of these views seems to be homosexuality could be a choice, it is difficult to take what you say with any credibility.

I never said it was my belief homosexuality was a choice. I said I wasn't aware of any definitive evidence that was universally accepted to prove or disprove "are you born gay". Does that make me a homophobe?. No it doesn't.

Show me where I said this?.

You're trying to railroad me into a discussion on homosexuality. Probably to try and out me (no pun intended) as a homophobe. You were struggling to keep up and tried to steer me elsewhere.

I have no issue with homosexuality. If you want to start a thread debating "are you born gay", do so, I may even join in if you like.

I've added the posts below which clearly refute your wide of the mark accusations. Read them slowly so you can absorb my answers.

Sorry. Are you saying you are not sure whether someone is born gay or chooses to be?

I'm not bothered either way, but as you ask, I am not aware of definitive evidence (that is universally accepted) that gives definitive proof that somebody is "born gay".

I wouldn't care to comment either way as this isn't what we're discussing in this thread. I would also have to do some serious research into the matter before commenting. I guess by definition I would find information relating to sexual preference (choice) and information relating to sexual orientation (predetermined). I never have done any serious research into this as it isn't a subject that has any bearing on my life.

I hope that clears that up.

Doesn't clear anything up other than your ignorance.

Ignorance about what?. Gay people?. Why are you so uptight about it?.

 

[Anonymous]

No, you're just not very mature, as evident by your response prior to this one.

If you ask several questions expect several answers. Your form of nitpicking responses again only serves to highlight your immaturity further.
Name calling and instigations won't get you very far or earn your opinions much respect. You've certainly lost mine.

I don't post for respect and care not if yours is not given.

Then I hope you're happy in your ignorance.
I for one will not hold anything you post on this topic with any regard from here on in.

Do what you want.

I stopped holding anything you post with any regard ages ago.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Give over girls!

The Pope has commented, sensibly I think:

The Pope says people 'cannot insult the faith of others', adding that he would punch someone if they offended his mother, as he debated freedom of speech in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack. The Pontiff said there were limits to freedom of expression and that 'provocateurs' should not purposely anger religious people.

Speaking on board the papal plane on his way to the Philippines, he also insisted that it was an 'aberration' to kill in the name of God and that religion can never be used to justify violence. The Pope says people 'cannot insult the faith of others', adding that he would punch someone if they offended his mother, as he debated freedom of speech in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack.

The Pontiff said there were limits to freedom of expression and that 'provocateurs' should not purposely anger religious people. Speaking on board the papal plane on his way to the Philippines, he also insisted that it was an 'aberration' to kill in the name of God and that religion can never be used to justify violence.