leicsmac Posted 6 February 2014 Posted 6 February 2014 Anyone think Ken would have said this about Muslims? I agree with this word for word. Godless uncontrolled materialism and religious fundamentalism are pretty much the same thing. Both make people abandon rationality for the sake of a 'higher power' - in the case of materialism, great material wealth. At least with atheist materialism scientific advancement is at least smiled upon as long as it brings in the dough. But that's one small mercy.
Webbo Posted 6 February 2014 Posted 6 February 2014 Godless uncontrolled materialism and religious fundamentalism are pretty much the same thing. Both make people abandon rationality for the sake of a 'higher power' - in the case of materialism, great material wealth. At least with atheist materialism scientific advancement is at least smiled upon as long as it brings in the dough. But that's one small mercy. Britain's never been a fundamentalist country.
leicsmac Posted 6 February 2014 Posted 6 February 2014 Britain's never been a fundamentalist country. That's true - it has been pious, but never theocratic. Doesn't however stop me thinking that religious belief should be kept within the houses and places of worship and out of the halls of state.
Webbo Posted 6 February 2014 Posted 6 February 2014 That's true - it has been pious, but never theocratic. Doesn't however stop me thinking that religious belief should be kept within the houses and places of worship and out of the halls of state. I wouldn't argue with that but the point was are really better off in this post religious age?
Captain... Posted 6 February 2014 Posted 6 February 2014 I wouldn't argue with that but the point was are really better off in this post religious age? I think we lack a strong moral guideline, where do we get it from? Our politicians spend all their time having petty arguments, the police are constantly accused of corruption and incompetence, the law only really being a factor if you get caught and if you don't have the money/influence to get round it. We idolise talentless celebrities with no moral compass and our news content is filtered by what will be the most profitable and least likely to offend the sponsors. The cultural output is morally ambiguous at best, we have had drug dealers, mass murderers and gangsters all being the stars of long running TV series. Our sports stars get paid obscene amounts and will cheat and lie just to win. I just don't think we have much out there to act as an overall moral guide. I'm not saying that religion necessarily provides those moral guidelines, but if you do believe you will be held accountable for every action you take in your life, then you may consider your actions more, or spend more time studying obscure interpretations of religious texts to find the justification you need. But I think this is a debate for another thread.
Rincewind Posted 6 February 2014 Posted 6 February 2014 The points I make are not done because of politics or religious beliefs but because I think having empathy and compassion for others. Nothing to do with being a 'lefty' as some put it. It is possible for people from all walks of life to care for those most vulnerable in society.
DennisNedry Posted 6 February 2014 Posted 6 February 2014 She didn't go on TV to be offensive, she went on TV to be involved in a debate, before she got a chance to make a point Currie was shouting over her about her dead Grandad. She lost her temper, which she shouldn't have done, but I understand it in the face of provocation about her family. Currie set about trying to discredit her, not to debate the issue, but to tell her her opinion is invalid because she comes from a rich background. It was pathetic from Currie, but pretty much summed up the entire show, any point from either side got lost in a sea of shouting and name calling. The only person who came out of it with any credit is the first man from the school on Benefits Street. I think her response on her blog is a considered and fair response which she wasn't afforded on the show, surely she should be applauded for battling out of poverty and making something of herself through hard work, and is now trying to help others. Agree with the first bit, but that man from the school offered nothing to the debate at all. The debate was supposed to be about benefits in general, whereas all he put forward was how scared his pupils are and how he wrote to Michael Gove (what the hell has a channel 4 TV show got to do with the education minister?)
Merging Cultures Posted 6 February 2014 Posted 6 February 2014 The points I make are not done because of politics or religious beliefs but because I think having empathy and compassion for others. Nothing to do with being a 'lefty' as some put it. It is possible for people from all walks of life to care for those most vulnerable in society. Yet, "The majority of church goers are right wingers who go on about family values. Hypocrites." and therefore incapable of showing empathy and compassion for others? I went off on a long email but decided I can't be bothered.
Guest MattP Posted 6 February 2014 Posted 6 February 2014 I saw a bit of the Benefits debate thing on Channel 5 and it really was uncomfortable to watch. Channel 5 did the usual thing TV shows do. Fill the audience and stage with left wing academics and benefits claimants, then provide a laughable right wing person (Katie Hopkins is a twat) to undermine the opposition completely. That fat waste of space shouting 'get me a job innit' to Edwina Curry just summed it all up. Even for the usual hatchet jobs we see from these people this was over the top, at least when the BBC do it they try to make it look respectable. This lot didn't care. Owen Jones, Penny Red, Charlie Brooker, Paris Lees, Lesbo Jack, Matthew Wright, the list just went on and on with the most outrageous lefties they could find. I can only presume Will Self was on holiday, he would have made up the full set. The majority of church goers are right wingers who go on about family values. Hypocrites. Yet you don't mind using these people to your advantage when they do something for the homeless or you take the churchgoers money for your shelter nights etc? Hypocrite. You are wrong as well, most churchgoers seem liberal these days, you might have been conned by the mass media into thinking we are like the American/south church market that all vote republican and hold traditional Christian values above all else. Although do you think family values are something to be ashamed of? She didn't go on TV to be offensive, she went on TV to be involved in a debate, before she got a chance to make a point Currie was shouting over her about her dead Grandad. She lost her temper, which she shouldn't have done, but I understand it in the face of provocation about her family. Currie set about trying to discredit her, not to debate the issue, but to tell her her opinion is invalid because she comes from a rich background. It was pathetic from Currie, but pretty much summed up the entire show, any point from either side got lost in a sea of shouting and name calling. The only person who came out of it with any credit is the first man from the school on Benefits Street. I think her response on her blog is a considered and fair response which she wasn't afforded on the show, surely she should be applauded for battling out of poverty and making something of herself through hard work, and is now trying to help others. She went on TV for self PR and again to push just how much of a bloke/dyke she was, you could see it from the start. I thought it was a competition between all the panelists to see who could look the most outrageous and I think she won. She was on BBC this week a while back and came across just as offensive. Anyone think Ken would have said this about Muslims? Of course he wouldn't, he's taken on every lefty stereotype you can think of now since the guys at DNO got hold of him, picked up the ball and ran with it. He'll be posting about freedom for Palestine in a few months. I think we lack a strong moral guideline, where do we get it from? Our politicians spend all their time having petty arguments, the police are constantly accused of corruption and incompetence, the law only really being a factor if you get caught and if you don't have the money/influence to get round it. We idolise talentless celebrities with no moral compass and our news content is filtered by what will be the most profitable and least likely to offend the sponsors. The cultural output is morally ambiguous at best, we have had drug dealers, mass murderers and gangsters all being the stars of long running TV series. Our sports stars get paid obscene amounts and will cheat and lie just to win. I just don't think we have much out there to act as an overall moral guide. I'm not saying that religion necessarily provides those moral guidelines, but if you do believe you will be held accountable for every action you take in your life, then you may consider your actions more, or spend more time studying obscure interpretations of religious texts to find the justification you need. But I think this is a debate for another thread. Cracking post. Agree with every word.
Guest MattP Posted 6 February 2014 Posted 6 February 2014 Agree with the first bit, but that man from the school offered nothing to the debate at all. The debate was supposed to be about benefits in general, whereas all he put forward was how scared his pupils are and how he wrote to Michael Gove (what the hell has a channel 4 TV show got to do with the education minister?) That was funny but no where near as good as that blokeish looking SWP type in the audience who started shouting about David Cameron's family being slaveowners That's when I realised exactly what they had brought in to discuss this issue.
FoxyPV Posted 6 February 2014 Posted 6 February 2014 I think we lack a strong moral guideline, where do we get it from? Our politicians spend all their time having petty arguments, the police are constantly accused of corruption and incompetence, the law only really being a factor if you get caught and if you don't have the money/influence to get round it. We idolise talentless celebrities with no moral compass and our news content is filtered by what will be the most profitable and least likely to offend the sponsors. The cultural output is morally ambiguous at best, we have had drug dealers, mass murderers and gangsters all being the stars of long running TV series. Our sports stars get paid obscene amounts and will cheat and lie just to win. I just don't think we have much out there to act as an overall moral guide. I'm not saying that religion necessarily provides those moral guidelines, but if you do believe you will be held accountable for every action you take in your life, then you may consider your actions more, or spend more time studying obscure interpretations of religious texts to find the justification you need. But I think this is a debate for another thread. Or instill a sense of personal responsibility into people? Cultivate a culture of people who actually behave like adults instead of spoilt kids?
Captain... Posted 6 February 2014 Posted 6 February 2014 Agree with the first bit, but that man from the school offered nothing to the debate at all. The debate was supposed to be about benefits in general, whereas all he put forward was how scared his pupils are and how he wrote to Michael Gove (what the hell has a channel 4 TV show got to do with the education minister?) He didn't really have a chance, he was trying to make a point about how we need a serious debate and not name calling, after Hopkins and Weir were tearing into each other, I can't remember what he said exactly, but in trying to make his point he said "dependency culture" and Wright jumped on him saying "do you think we have a dependency culture?", he said "that's not my point" and tried to continue when Wright said "but we don't have time for that we need to move on, do you think there is a dependency culture in the UK?". As he wouldn't shout over the others he didn't get to say anything else. The big benefits row, indeed. Actually someone else who came across well, was Boris' sister, spoke a lot of sense and didn't get drawn into the cat fighting, to be honest when I think back to it, I just hear a mess of screaming voices.
Captain... Posted 6 February 2014 Posted 6 February 2014 She went on TV for self PR and again to push just how much of a bloke/dyke she was, you could see it from the start. I thought it was a competition between all the panelists to see who could look the most outrageous and I think she won. She was on BBC this week a while back and came across just as offensive. What does her being a bloke/dyke have to do with anything, is she actually gay? I know she has a kid. I would say Hopkins won, but then that is her modus operandi, say something outrageous then when challenged on it say something even more outrageous. Didn't see Jack on the BBC, but she didn't come out of this "debate" well, she comes across a lot better in writing, but then she has time to construct her argument. Thing is though she is not a media personality like Hopkins or a Politician or a political commentator like Jones, she made an honest reaction to Currie bringing up her dead grandfather to score points. I really can't blame her, but in future she should probably avoid live TV and stick to her blog/column.
Guest MattP Posted 6 February 2014 Posted 6 February 2014 What does her being a bloke/dyke have to do with anything, is she actually gay? I know she has a kid. I would say Hopkins won, but then that is her modus operandi, say something outrageous then when challenged on it say something even more outrageous. Didn't see Jack on the BBC, but she didn't come out of this "debate" well, she comes across a lot better in writing, but then she has time to construct her argument. Thing is though she is not a media personality like Hopkins or a Politician or a political commentator like Jones, she made an honest reaction to Currie bringing up her dead grandfather to score points. I really can't blame her, but in future she should probably avoid live TV and stick to her blog/column. Is the first line a serious question? Of course shes a lesbian, you can't look me in the eye and tell me a woman like that is straight kid or not. A lot of people come across better in writing than they do in person, probably because she isn't actually writing the stuff herself. Maybe that's me being cynical.
Captain... Posted 6 February 2014 Posted 6 February 2014 Is the first line a serious question? Of course shes a lesbian, you can't look me in the eye and tell me a woman like that is straight kid or not. A lot of people come across better in writing than they do in person, probably because she isn't actually writing the stuff herself. Maybe that's me being cynical. Quite possibly she is getting help now, I don't know much about her, but I'm not going to assume she's a muff diver because she has short hair and looks like she could kick my ass, I reckon she would be a good shag too, I think I might actually fancy her a bit, and you know that if you got a blow job she would definitely swallow.
Guest MattP Posted 6 February 2014 Posted 6 February 2014 One important point to take from the show mind is that despite the audience present, the polls that were put up show that the people of this country overwhelmingly back the governments welfare reforms. Only can be good news for the Conservatives if IDS continues to try and "make work pay" over living off the state.
Guest MattP Posted 6 February 2014 Posted 6 February 2014 Quite possibly she is getting help now, I don't know much about her, but I'm not going to assume she's a muff diver because she has short hair and looks like she could kick my ass, I reckon she would be a good shag too, I think I might actually fancy her a bit, and you know that if you got a blow job she would definitely swallow. I'm happy to use common sense tbh. You can use your nouse to assume things, it doesn't hurt anyone, I mean there has never been any proof but we all know White Dee would vote Labour don't we? Monroe identifies as a lesbian despite having sexual relationships with men.[12] In 2013, she was ranked #19 in The Independent on Sunday's Pink List of influential LGBT people in the United Kingdom Lesbian, single mother and in poverty. Very 21st Century.
Captain... Posted 6 February 2014 Posted 6 February 2014 I'm happy to use common sense tbh. Lesbian, single mother and in poverty. Very 21st Century. That ticks nearly all the boxes, if you can find anything a bit ethnic in there then I think she would be my liberal wet dream ideal woman.
Guest MattP Posted 6 February 2014 Posted 6 February 2014 That ticks nearly all the boxes, if you can find anything a bit ethnic in there then I think she would be my liberal wet dream ideal woman. Well ideally she'll have the sex change op eventually. Ethnic wouldn;t work, the ethnic guardian reading far-leftie is a myth, I've certainly never seen or heard of one, it's a strictly white privledge guilt thing innit.
Buce Posted 6 February 2014 Posted 6 February 2014 Anyone think Ken would have said this about Muslims? I doubt that he would, because it's untrue; politically, in this country at least, the Muslim vote goes largely to Labour. Ken would know this because it appears that he actually backs up his opinions with some research, rather than just parroting the Daily Mail.
Webbo Posted 6 February 2014 Posted 6 February 2014 I doubt that he would, because it's untrue; politically, in this country at least, the Muslim vote goes largely to Labour. Ken would know this because it appears that he actually backs up his opinions with some research, rather than just parroting the Daily Mail. So you're saying that christians largely vote Tory? What you seem to be saying is that it's okay to make sweeping statements and be offensive against christians but not muslims
Guest MattP Posted 6 February 2014 Posted 6 February 2014 I doubt that he would, because it's untrue; politically, in this country at least, the Muslim vote goes largely to Labour. Ken would know this because it appears that he actually backs up his opinions with some research, rather than just parroting the Daily Mail. We've got one here! We should start playing Daily Mail bingo on these threads. Of course the Muslim vote goes to Labour, look at the areas in which the Muslim community lives. I'll bet the small Muslim community that has started to grow in Hertfordshire doesn't vote for them.
purpleronnie Posted 6 February 2014 Posted 6 February 2014 We've got one here! We should start playing Daily Mail bingo on these threads. Full house...............................of polish immigrants.
Guest MattP Posted 6 February 2014 Posted 6 February 2014 Buce, you are falling into the trap of thinking most people actually know what they are voting for.
Buce Posted 6 February 2014 Posted 6 February 2014 So you're saying that christians largely vote Tory? What you seem to be saying is that it's okay to make sweeping statements and be offensive against christians but not muslims No, sorry, I've obviously not expressed myself very clearly: I was trying to say that the fact that he wouldn't say this against Muslims would not in itself indicate a reluctance to be critical of Islam. In answer to your question: No, I don't agree in the slightest that all Christians are Tories; I would doubt if even most are. However, I do believe most Tories are Christian, which is what I suspect Ken was trying to say.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.