The Donald Trump Incredulity Thread

[George Carlin]

First topic message reminder :

I know that this doesn't relate to rugby, but feel free to say what you want about the 45th (and presumably final) president of the United States.

A man John Oliver once described as "a large clown made of dessicated foreskin and cotton candy".

[the-goon]

I'm not Rory.

The top video.... are you serious? That's what you get from that? I would then have to place you in the crowd that thinks it right to abuse a poor homeless woman that likely suffers from some mental illness.

So being Latino gives a person the right to attack a Duck supporter?

Sorry sin, I've misjudged you. I thought you were much better than this.

Sorry about that - too many responses in the one thread.

While the poor woman might not be the full shilling, have you read what she has on those cards? She is blaming Mexicans for her homelessness.  I think you are expecting an awful lot of Mexicans and Latinos to always turn the other cheek.

T rump has incited all of this hatred.

So T&rump is at fault for a Mexican's actions? No PERSONAL responsibility? Classic soft bigotry of low expectations.

Are you a parody? If so, well done you have hooked me in.

Why T&rump being auto corrected to Duck? Mods, are you able to be neutral at all?

[Guest]

I'm not Rory.

The top video.... are you serious? That's what you get from that? I would then have to place you in the crowd that thinks it right to abuse a poor homeless woman that likely suffers from some mental illness.

So being Latino gives a person the right to attack a Duck supporter?

Sorry sin, I've misjudged you. I thought you were much better than this.

Sorry about that - too many responses in the one thread.

While the poor woman might not be the full shilling, have you read what she has on those cards? She is blaming Mexicans for her homelessness.  I think you are expecting an awful lot of Mexicans and Latinos to always turn the other cheek.

T rump has incited all of this hatred.

And I apologise for being so harsh in my reply.

The point I was making is that it doesn't matter what she had written on the cards. For arguments sake, it shouldn't even matter that she may be mentally ill. What matters is that she is one person who is expressing her opinion, and should be free to do so without incurring mob wrath. This woman is homeless, and desperate. She has a right to be angry. Personally, I found the clip very disturbing, and probably more so because she is obviously poor, and probably ill. Should we all take offence at what those who have mental issue's say? Can we be in any way justified in attacking them?

It was the reaction of the crowd I was focused on though. Feeling offended does not give us the right to attack, and attacking soft targets is very low. Both sides have the idiots who are guilty of this, and all involved should be condemned outright. The US is a democracy, and democracy usually means one side loses. That's just how it works.

[the-goon]

I have the courage to say what I think, you are too afraid. You dislike Muslims but not Christians. Why? Because you're racist.

You don't have the courage debate my ideas tho. You have run from every question I have asked. Also, which race are muslims anyway?

Btw, You dislike Christians but not Muslims. Why? Because you're racist. By your logic we are both racists. Shall we go to the KKK enrollment office together?

[Rory_Gallagher]

All Abrahamic religions are essentially the same, with most differences being cultural interpretations. The only major difference is the belief in God born as Man in Christianity. Some of the worst atrocities have been waged by Christian on Christian in Europe (albeit a few centuries ago). Trying to claim one is inherently ‘worse’ or ‘more brutal’ just misunderstands them. Interpretations of course vary over time and culture. As does all human behaviour.

Nor sure what this has to do with Duck being a d1ck though.

This is just a display of ignorance and laziness. Care to provide evidence for the first sentence in particular?

[Sin é]

I'm not Rory.

The top video.... are you serious? That's what you get from that? I would then have to place you in the crowd that thinks it right to abuse a poor homeless woman that likely suffers from some mental illness.

So being Latino gives a person the right to attack a Duck supporter?

Sorry sin, I've misjudged you. I thought you were much better than this.

Sorry about that - too many responses in the one thread.

While the poor woman might not be the full shilling, have you read what she has on those cards? She is blaming Mexicans for her homelessness.  I think you are expecting an awful lot of Mexicans and Latinos to always turn the other cheek.

T rump has incited all of this hatred.

And I apologise for being so harsh in my reply.

The point I was making is that it doesn't matter what she had written on the cards. For arguments sake, it shouldn't even matter that she may be mentally ill. What matters is that she is one person who is expressing her opinion, and should be free to do so without incurring mob wrath. This woman is homeless, and desperate. She has a right to be angry. Personally, I found the clip very disturbing, and probably more so because she is obviously poor, and probably ill. Should we all take offence at what those who have mental issue's say? Can we be in any way justified in attacking them?

It was the reaction of the crowd I was focused on though. Feeling offended does not give us the right to attack, and attacking soft targets is very low. Both sides have the idiots who are guilty of this, and all involved should be condemned outright. The US is a democracy, and democracy usually means one side loses. That's just how it works.

Normally, it probably wouldn't have bothered anyone what she had written, but the Mexicans have been targetted by Duck and that is the problem.

By the way, all they did was take away the cards she was holding - they did not lay a finger on her. She tripped herself and just lay down and didn't move.

And it is Duck I blame for all of this. He is the one who has set the poor against the poor.

[Rory_Gallagher]

Don't know enough about it to tell you what some Muslims beiieve, let alone all of them. For all I know yes to all. No, some religions breed hate like Christianity. Blaming a whole section of people is lazy and racist, I do believe you are a racist.

Lol.

[the-goon]

All Abrahamic religions are essentially the same, with most differences being cultural interpretations. The only major difference is the belief in God born as Man in Christianity. Some of the worst atrocities have been waged by Christian on Christian in Europe (albeit a few centuries ago). Trying to claim one is inherently ‘worse’ or ‘more brutal’ just misunderstands them. Interpretations of course vary over time and culture. As does all human behaviour.

Nor sure what this has to do with Duck being a d1ck though.

This is just a display of ignorance and laziness. Care to provide evidence for the first sentence in particular?

To quote Sam Harris, badminton and rugby are both sports but there is nothing similar to them bar the fact that ppl need to breathe to play them.

[Rory_Gallagher]

Censoring T rump's name? Really? He is the president of the United States. That is rather childish.

[SecretFly]

And it is Duck I blame for all of this. He is the one who has set the poor against the poor.

Biblical assessment there, Sin.

I feel a new religion coming on with the emergence of the Great Satan in the land of...well, the Great Satan. Should be a good read. Tom Hanks to play Hillary.

[the-goon]

Don't know enough about it to tell you what some Muslims beiieve, let alone all of them. For all I know yes to all. No, some religions breed hate like Christianity. Blaming a whole section of people is lazy and racist, I do believe you are a racist.

Lol.

Projection?

[Rory_Gallagher]

All Abrahamic religions are essentially the same, with most differences being cultural interpretations. The only major difference is the belief in God born as Man in Christianity. Some of the worst atrocities have been waged by Christian on Christian in Europe (albeit a few centuries ago). Trying to claim one is inherently ‘worse’ or ‘more brutal’ just misunderstands them. Interpretations of course vary over time and culture. As does all human behaviour.

Nor sure what this has to do with Duck being a d1ck though.

This is just a display of ignorance and laziness. Care to provide evidence for the first sentence in particular?

To quote Sam Harris, badminton and rugby are both sports but there is nothing similar to them bar the fact that ppl need to breathe to play them.

Obviously I don't care if people believe all of the religions to be complete nonsense, but to say they are "essentially the same" is just lazy. There is also a reason why societies that are built upon genuine Judeo-Christian values (you might not like it, but it is the reality, before getting into that debate) are vastly different from those built upon Islamic values or even atheistic socialist values.

[the-goon]

All Abrahamic religions are essentially the same, with most differences being cultural interpretations. The only major difference is the belief in God born as Man in Christianity. Some of the worst atrocities have been waged by Christian on Christian in Europe (albeit a few centuries ago). Trying to claim one is inherently ‘worse’ or ‘more brutal’ just misunderstands them. Interpretations of course vary over time and culture. As does all human behaviour.

Nor sure what this has to do with Duck being a d1ck though.

This is just a display of ignorance and laziness. Care to provide evidence for the first sentence in particular?

To quote Sam Harris, badminton and rugby are both sports but there is nothing similar to them bar the fact that ppl need to breathe to play them.

Obviously I don't care if people believe all of the religions to be complete nonsense, but to say they are "essentially the same" is just lazy. There is also a reason why societies that are built upon genuine Judeo-Christian values (you might not like it, but it is the reality, before getting into that debate) are vastly different from those built upon Islamic values or even atheistic socialist values.

Testify, 100% agree. It's not about judging, it's simply accurately describing facts.

[Guest]

I'm not Rory.

The top video.... are you serious? That's what you get from that? I would then have to place you in the crowd that thinks it right to abuse a poor homeless woman that likely suffers from some mental illness.

So being Latino gives a person the right to attack a Duck supporter?

Sorry sin, I've misjudged you. I thought you were much better than this.

Sorry about that - too many responses in the one thread.

While the poor woman might not be the full shilling, have you read what she has on those cards? She is blaming Mexicans for her homelessness.  I think you are expecting an awful lot of Mexicans and Latinos to always turn the other cheek.

T rump has incited all of this hatred.

And I apologise for being so harsh in my reply.

The point I was making is that it doesn't matter what she had written on the cards. For arguments sake, it shouldn't even matter that she may be mentally ill. What matters is that she is one person who is expressing her opinion, and should be free to do so without incurring mob wrath. This woman is homeless, and desperate. She has a right to be angry. Personally, I found the clip very disturbing, and probably more so because she is obviously poor, and probably ill. Should we all take offence at what those who have mental issue's say? Can we be in any way justified in attacking them?

It was the reaction of the crowd I was focused on though. Feeling offended does not give us the right to attack, and attacking soft targets is very low. Both sides have the idiots who are guilty of this, and all involved should be condemned outright. The US is a democracy, and democracy usually means one side loses. That's just how it works.

Normally, it probably wouldn't have bothered anyone what she had written, but the Mexicans have been targetted by Duck and that is the problem.

By the way, all they did was take away the cards she was holding - they did not lay a finger on her. She tripped herself and just lay down and didn't move.

And it is Duck I blame for all of this. He is the one who has set the poor against the poor.

They did much more than just take her cards, Sin é, cards that where her property. The level of intimidation was high, as was the verbal abuse and sense of threat. The idiot thug at the end threatened physical abuse.
It should also be remembered that this wasn't an isolated incident. Other Duck supporters have been physically attacked.

Duck didn't legitimize their behaviour. He doesn't have the authority to do so. They alone are responsible for their actions, just as Duck is his. The same is true for those who attack Clinton supporters. There is no justification for either side to behave like thugs.

[Guest]

Duck?

I think the mods are having a giggle

[Barney McGrew did it]

All Abrahamic religions are essentially the same, with most differences being cultural interpretations. The only major difference is the belief in God born as Man in Christianity. Some of the worst atrocities have been waged by Christian on Christian in Europe (albeit a few centuries ago). Trying to claim one is inherently ‘worse’ or ‘more brutal’ just misunderstands them. Interpretations of course vary over time and culture. As does all human behaviour.

Nor sure what this has to do with Duck being a d1ck though.

This is just a display of ignorance and laziness. Care to provide evidence for the first sentence in particular?

No. I'm too lazy (but not ignorant). And I don't care if you disagree with me. Peace out.

[Guest]

Donaaaald ....... Duck!

[the-goon]

Clinton..anything?

[Rory_Gallagher]

All Abrahamic religions are essentially the same, with most differences being cultural interpretations. The only major difference is the belief in God born as Man in Christianity. Some of the worst atrocities have been waged by Christian on Christian in Europe (albeit a few centuries ago). Trying to claim one is inherently ‘worse’ or ‘more brutal’ just misunderstands them. Interpretations of course vary over time and culture. As does all human behaviour.

Nor sure what this has to do with Duck being a d1ck though.

This is just a display of ignorance and laziness. Care to provide evidence for the first sentence in particular?

No. I'm too lazy (but not ignorant). And I don't care if you disagree with me. Peace out.

It isn't about whether I disagree with you or not. It's just an incorrect statement. The basis of each of the religions (the Quran and the Bible) teach something fundamentally different. They are diametrically opposed.

[carpet baboon]

But as with all religions they are man made.
So regardless of who's god is real, if any, it's about man's whim's more than anything.

[Guest]

Again, the same pretty much applies. The Koran isn't as strong on homosexuality, with just a vague reference, but the Hadith is much stronger. Again, Muslims will look to the Imam for instruction, and the general thought is homosexuality may be punishable by death. The interesting thing is that the 'giver' is thought less culpable than the 'receiver' The 'receiver' is the one deemed to be gay. You can see this is some prisons, for example, as sodomising a prisoner is thought of as punishment.

Well that's the neat trick to keep the weak oppressed - women and less robust men.  Society in ways hasn't changed much anywhere - not even in the West - because in truth man follows instincts more than logic and social patterns.  Man is an animal.  Animals aren't taught how to construct their rules of society, they follow programming given to them by their competitive genes - those genes that want to survive beyond other genes.  Our instincts are still there and we try to hide them with pleasant words, customs and philosophies - but the one trait remains, the weak will be used, abused and defeated by the strong.  And in the end, over a long time frame, there is no emotion in that process - and the process hasn't become extinct.
Crime gangs are nothing more or less than Ancient Chiefdoms operating right in a supposed modern world.  Respect demanded, rule through violence, hierarchy and inheritance.  Our basic operating structure as a species is still the one driven by Evolution - we can't escape it - the tribe.  We don't want a united world because our genes despise the concept - because the concept runs counter to the requirements of evolution - survival of those that adapt best.  The tribe.  Religions are versions of Tribes, but not the only ones.  Political parties or Philosophies are tribes.  And now even Gender Identities are basically tribes.  And each tribe recognises another tribe.  And when a tribe is identified, they become a competitor.  Tribes follow the age old process - the strongest tribe rises to the top and kills off or subjugates the other tribes.

All the friction in the world, in geographic terms and in terms of internal friction in societies?  Just look at it - it's evolution at work - and No argument is going to disrupt it or stop it.  That's the crazy thing when you look at it anthropologically - the fight for supremacy of ideas won't be stopped - and in reality, harmonisation and tolerance is not an option on the table in basic evolution.  Man has gotten this far through war and the suppression of competition.  It's not about to stop because the literate elite create grand arguments against it.

I watched a mini documentary about the oppression of Homosexuals in Iraq, on Al Jazeera. How they would find them and r*** them, yet not view their own actions as homosexual. They were the innocent. The homosexual was the guilty, and deserving of his punishment. What a sick, twisted, logic. You're right in that it is a means of legitimizing oppression, but also a means to legitimize their perversion. Apparently some of the prisoners taken during the failed coup in Turkey met with the same fate. It is to dehumanize, but it's more than that.

I think people are different than other animals. They can be much more brutal, and needlessly so. Not for survival, but a blood lust. On the other hand, human can show great acts of compassion, even sacrifice. Even if it means they themselves will not survive. Sometimes we struggle between the two. War is in our hearts, but so to is compassion, mercy, forgiveness.

You're absolutely right that the nature of man hasn't changed at all through the ages. The Enlightenment would counter that, but it isn't mans nature that's changed, but the rules in 'civilised' society. The 'norms'. The accepted behaviour. Easy when all is going well....

[Rory_Gallagher]

But as with all religions they are man made.
So regardless of who's god is real, if any, it's about man's whim's more than anything.

That is a matter of subjectivity. It isn't the opinion of those who practise said religions (obviously).

[Guest]

But as with all religions they are man made.
So regardless of who's god is real, if any, it's about man's whim's more than anything.

Or about mans abuse of religion to further his own ends.

[SecretFly]

Yeah, could the mods end the 'Duck' trick.... that presumes a 606 official bias. And as some of you have realised, not all 606 ducks quack from the same pond.

[mikey_dragon]

Don't know enough about it to tell you what some Muslims beiieve, let alone all of them. For all I know yes to all. No, some religions breed hate like Christianity. Blaming a whole section of people is lazy and racist, I do believe you are a racist.

Didn't take long for someone (probably a libtard) to play his racist card. Yaaawwwwwwwnn!!!

[carpet baboon]

But as with all religions they are man made.
So regardless of who's god is real, if any, it's about man's whim's more than anything.

That is a matter of subjectivity. It isn't the opinion of those who practise said religions (obviously).

True but as far as I'm aware all gods sent there message through prophets rather than direct mail, so the message is itself subject to the prophets (man's) interpretation, therefore man made religion.

Now I respect anyone who doesn't agree, and I will argue to the death their right to freely worship anyway they choose.
Religion is a great source of good for 99% of the time. It's a shame about that 1%

[carpet baboon]

Don't know enough about it to tell you what some Muslims beiieve, let alone all of them. For all I know yes to all. No, some religions breed hate like Christianity. Blaming a whole section of people is lazy and racist, I do believe you are a racist.

Didn't take long for someone (probably a libtard) to play his racist card. Yaaawwwwwwwnn!!!

Calling someone a libtard demeans you more than anything. It's your freedom to say what you like but using words lije that makes sure nobody will bother to listen

[mikey_dragon]

I'm not Rory.

The top video.... are you serious? That's what you get from that? I would then have to place you in the crowd that thinks it right to abuse a poor homeless woman that likely suffers from some mental illness.

So being Latino gives a person the right to attack a Duck supporter?

Sorry sin, I've misjudged you. I thought you were much better than this.

Sorry about that - too many responses in the one thread.

While the poor woman might not be the full shilling, have you read what she has on those cards? She is blaming Mexicans for her homelessness.  I think you are expecting an awful lot of Mexicans and Latinos to always turn the other cheek.

T rump has incited all of this hatred.

This is what them liberal folk always do. Believe it's okay to assault Duck supporters, but go through the roof when a Duck supporter doesn't wish to speak to a journalist presumably because of how that person gets demonised for their beliefs. This isn't the first time I've seen Latino people assault DT supporters but that's okay because the bigoted lefties say it is. There's also protestors burning some manakin that's dressed to look like DT, and students are leaving their classes because they need their 'safe space' - why do liberal think this behaviour is okay? Thank f**k we never had to rely on people like this to go to a world war.

[SecretFly]

Religion is a great source of good for 99% of the time. It's a shame about that 1%

Yes, but that's still a much smaller percentage than the bad percentage of politics, the bad percentage of Imperialism, the bad percentage of science.... to name but a few other human-control processes.

[mikey_dragon]

Don't know enough about it to tell you what some Muslims beiieve, let alone all of them. For all I know yes to all. No, some religions breed hate like Christianity. Blaming a whole section of people is lazy and racist, I do believe you are a racist.

Didn't take long for someone (probably a libtard) to play his racist card. Yaaawwwwwwwnn!!!

Calling someone a libtard demeans you more than anything. It's your freedom to say what you like but using words lije that makes sure nobody will bother to listen

People who are 'left' don't want to listen to people who disagree with them because they're bigots. Someone who's in touch with reality wouldn't play that card - liberals are clearly out of touch.

I don't consider them a homogenous group and I know there has been a lot of recent debate over 'left' and 'right' - so perhaps it's a good idea to stop using it.

[SecretFly]

Calling someone a libtard demeans you more than anything. It's your freedom to say what you like but using words lije that makes sure nobody will bother to listen

Calling T-rum-p a Duck is despicable! He should now remove all American NATO troops from Eastern Europe! Let that learn'em!

[mikey_dragon]

Censoring T rump's name? Really? He is the president of the United States. That is rather childish.

Yep. It's as bad as posting an article attempting to incite hate on the rugby forum.

[Rory_Gallagher]

But as with all religions they are man made.
So regardless of who's god is real, if any, it's about man's whim's more than anything.

That is a matter of subjectivity. It isn't the opinion of those who practise said religions (obviously).

True but as far as I'm aware all gods sent there message through prophets rather than direct mail, so the message is itself subject to the prophets (man's) interpretation, therefore man made religion.

Now I respect anyone who doesn't agree, and I will argue to the death their right to freely worship anyway they choose.
Religion is a great source of good for 99% of the time. It's a shame about that 1%

Except for Christianity where the message was delivered by God Himself (Jesus Christ). Of course, you may or may not agree that Jesus Christ was the Son of God or that he even existed at all. But that is a crucial element of Christianity.

Anyway, I do apologise if I have deviated the conversation away from ducks. I always preferred Daffy.

[SecretFly]

Censoring T rump's name? Really? He is the president of the United States. That is rather childish.

Yep. It's as bad as posting an article attempting to incite hate on the rugby forum.

Who done dat den?

[carpet baboon]

Well after all of this I thinks it's clear that I total agree with myself that Donald is an absolute arse of a human being and isn't fit for any sort of office.
The only saving grace is he is going to hate the next 4 years of his life as for the first time he's going to have to do some work.

Hurumph to me I agree

[SecretFly]

Anyway, on this thread - dedicated to God,  I'd like to take a few seconds to Bow as the Great Leonard Cohen goes to his God.  2016 keeps stealing the best.

[carpet baboon]

But as with all religions they are man made.
So regardless of who's god is real, if any, it's about man's whim's more than anything.

That is a matter of subjectivity. It isn't the opinion of those who practise said religions (obviously).

True but as far as I'm aware all gods sent there message through prophets rather than direct mail, so the message is itself subject to the prophets (man's) interpretation, therefore man made religion.

Now I respect anyone who doesn't agree, and I will argue to the death their right to freely worship anyway they choose.
Religion is a great source of good for 99% of the time. It's a shame about that 1%

Except for Christianity where the message was delivered by God Himself (Jesus Christ). Of course, you may or may not agree that Jesus Christ was the Son of God or that he even existed at all. But that is a crucial element of Christianity.

Anyway, I do apologise if I have deviated the conversation away from ducks. I always preferred Daffy.

Ahhh but wasn't Jesus born a man and therefore prone to all the self doubt any man can have? As proven by his time in the desert.
So in theory could his interpretation of god's word have been influenced by internal bias?

Now I remember why sister Catherine used to throw me out of RE lessons

[the-goon]

So you would feel the same for a Muslim as for a Christian. Maybe you should just drop the whole religion thing altogether and just go with judge people as you find them rather than putting them into one box like Duck indicated he would, before backing right down now he's in?

"I judge people on their individual merits."

To be fair, he said that at the beginning.

But several things he has said other than that suggests he doesn't really and has a thing against Muslims in particular while ignoring similar feeling and thoughts within the more westernised Christianity.

I think you are merely reading into his words what you wish to believe, rather than actually reading what he is saying. Your mind seems to be already made up about his opinions.

Can we please stick to ideas not people.

Is the Koran considered the literal revealed word god? Which cannot be amended or altered in any way? Yes/No

Are contradictions in the Koran resolved by abrogation? i.e. later versus supersede earlier ones. Yes/No

Is homosexually deemed a sin in the Koran? Yes/No

Is the punishment death? Yes/No

In your opinion is this acceptable?  Yes/No

Do you agree with this statement? If not, why not.

Religion is an ideology, which in turn a belief system of ideas and practices

It's not as simple as saying the Koran is the word of God, because Muslims believe it's only the Imams that can truly interpret meaning. I'm sure you can see the dangers in that. That also applies to your second question.

Do you want to continue with the remaining questions?

Again, the same pretty much applies. The Koran isn't as strong on homosexuality, with just a vague reference, but the Hadith is much stronger. Again, Muslims will look to the Imam for instruction, and the general thought is homosexuality may be punishable by death. The interesting thing is that the 'giver' is thought less culpable than the 'receiver' The 'receiver' is the one deemed to be gay. You can see this is some prisons, for example, as sodomising a prisoner is thought of as punishment.

Throughout all the bluster I didn't see this. This is interesting, but the Sharia is quite clear on homosexuality hence it being a death sentence in many muslim countries. I didn't know the giver would necessarily be considered gay.

They may look to the Iman for instruction, but how the Koran is interpreted tends to be the way I have described.

[Guest]

So you would feel the same for a Muslim as for a Christian. Maybe you should just drop the whole religion thing altogether and just go with judge people as you find them rather than putting them into one box like Duck indicated he would, before backing right down now he's in?

"I judge people on their individual merits."

To be fair, he said that at the beginning.

But several things he has said other than that suggests he doesn't really and has a thing against Muslims in particular while ignoring similar feeling and thoughts within the more westernised Christianity.

I think you are merely reading into his words what you wish to believe, rather than actually reading what he is saying. Your mind seems to be already made up about his opinions.

Can we please stick to ideas not people.

Is the Koran considered the literal revealed word god? Which cannot be amended or altered in any way? Yes/No

Are contradictions in the Koran resolved by abrogation? i.e. later versus supersede earlier ones. Yes/No

Is homosexually deemed a sin in the Koran? Yes/No

Is the punishment death? Yes/No

In your opinion is this acceptable?  Yes/No

Do you agree with this statement? If not, why not.

Religion is an ideology, which in turn a belief system of ideas and practices

It's not as simple as saying the Koran is the word of God, because Muslims believe it's only the Imams that can truly interpret meaning. I'm sure you can see the dangers in that. That also applies to your second question.

Do you want to continue with the remaining questions?

Again, the same pretty much applies. The Koran isn't as strong on homosexuality, with just a vague reference, but the Hadith is much stronger. Again, Muslims will look to the Imam for instruction, and the general thought is homosexuality may be punishable by death. The interesting thing is that the 'giver' is thought less culpable than the 'receiver' The 'receiver' is the one deemed to be gay. You can see this is some prisons, for example, as sodomising a prisoner is thought of as punishment.

Throughout all the bluster I didn't see this. This is interesting, but the Sharia is quite clear on homosexuality hence it being a death sentence in many muslim countries. I didn't know the giver would necessarily be considered gay.

They may look to the Iman for instruction, but how the Koran is interpreted tends to be the way I have described.

Although the Sharia is derived from the Koran, it is not the Koran. It is based on its teachings. Not all Islamic countries strictly enforce Sharia. Some think the penalties too harsh.

Imams do not all agree with one another - Radicals v Moderates. So interpretation isn't set in stone, and you describe one interpretation. A generalisation that's generally true.

No, the giver isn't (depending on circumstance). It's the receiver.

[the-goon]

over to you goon.

I think I've explained my position quite clearly. I Judge ppl individually. I disagree fundamentally with Islam the ideology when it comes to gays, free speech, women and identity politics, but know that not every person fully subscribes to every aspect of an ideology they identify with.

I think we need to be honest and challenge the views that come from Islam, as they are not all good and at the same time be measured in our approach and be clear that we are talking about the ideology, and probably more specifically the political side of the ideology, than attacking people.

We should also be championing reformers within the faith, and not allow their voices to be silenced by the loud and violence hardline elements.

This is probably the most important issue in Europe right now, as we have a serious issue with integration within muslim immigrant communities. If we can't have an honest dialogue without slurs being dished out, we won't solve anything and ppl (muslim and non-muslim) will suffer for it.

This approach of challenging ALL ideas and ideologies through open debate is the best to advance. Islam is not the only ideology that needs honest debate, but its what we are discussing now.

As I've said throughout, ideas not people.

[SecretFly]

I was just trying to construct a method to stop 7 repeating the questions and seeming to forever think you weren't answering, goon.

I think I understand what your standing is.

[the-goon]

So you would feel the same for a Muslim as for a Christian. Maybe you should just drop the whole religion thing altogether and just go with judge people as you find them rather than putting them into one box like Duck indicated he would, before backing right down now he's in?

"I judge people on their individual merits."

To be fair, he said that at the beginning.

But several things he has said other than that suggests he doesn't really and has a thing against Muslims in particular while ignoring similar feeling and thoughts within the more westernised Christianity.

I think you are merely reading into his words what you wish to believe, rather than actually reading what he is saying. Your mind seems to be already made up about his opinions.

Can we please stick to ideas not people.

Is the Koran considered the literal revealed word god? Which cannot be amended or altered in any way? Yes/No

Are contradictions in the Koran resolved by abrogation? i.e. later versus supersede earlier ones. Yes/No

Is homosexually deemed a sin in the Koran? Yes/No

Is the punishment death? Yes/No

In your opinion is this acceptable?  Yes/No

Do you agree with this statement? If not, why not.

Religion is an ideology, which in turn a belief system of ideas and practices

It's not as simple as saying the Koran is the word of God, because Muslims believe it's only the Imams that can truly interpret meaning. I'm sure you can see the dangers in that. That also applies to your second question.

Do you want to continue with the remaining questions?

Again, the same pretty much applies. The Koran isn't as strong on homosexuality, with just a vague reference, but the Hadith is much stronger. Again, Muslims will look to the Imam for instruction, and the general thought is homosexuality may be punishable by death. The interesting thing is that the 'giver' is thought less culpable than the 'receiver' The 'receiver' is the one deemed to be gay. You can see this is some prisons, for example, as sodomising a prisoner is thought of as punishment.

Throughout all the bluster I didn't see this. This is interesting, but the Sharia is quite clear on homosexuality hence it being a death sentence in many muslim countries. I didn't know the giver would necessarily be considered gay.

They may look to the Iman for instruction, but how the Koran is interpreted tends to be the way I have described.

Although the Sharia is derived from the Koran, it is not the Koran. It is based on its teachings. Not all Islamic countries strictly enforce Sharia. Some think the penalties too harsh.

Imams do not all agree with one another - Radicals v Moderates. So interpretation isn't set in stone, and you describe one interpretation. A generalisation that's generally true.

No, the giver isn't (depending on circumstance). It's the receiver.

But the fundamental issue remains that Islam thinks homosexuality is wrong. That is a big issue when here in the west it accepted, Christian do as well, and that is also wrong before anyone starts. We need to tackle that as well. But it's a matter of scale and severity of the condemnation that is the crux. Not baking a cake vs state sponsored murder is some cases.

[the-goon]

But as with all religions they are man made.
So regardless of who's god is real, if any, it's about man's whim's more than anything.

That is a matter of subjectivity. It isn't the opinion of those who practise said religions (obviously).

True but as far as I'm aware all gods sent there message through prophets rather than direct mail, so the message is itself subject to the prophets (man's) interpretation, therefore man made religion.

Now I respect anyone who doesn't agree, and I will argue to the death their right to freely worship anyway they choose.
Religion is a great source of good for 99% of the time. It's a shame about that 1%

What's your evidence to say it's 1% bad, 99% good. It's lazy, wishful thinking. And is 99% good acceptable? Why not 100%

[the-goon]

I was just trying to construct a method to stop 7 repeating the questions and seeming to forever think you weren't answering, goon.

I think I understand what your standing is.

Do you agree? Interested in your opinion.

[SecretFly]

I was just trying to construct a method to stop 7 repeating the questions and seeming to forever think you weren't answering, goon.

I think I understand what your standing is.

Do you agree? Interested in your opinion.

Oh I believe in, and have often championed here (even at times probably became uncharacteristically angry) the concept of freedom of speech.  You can't move the world anywhere if people feel their opinions are considered 'wrong' thought, 'bad' opinion, disallowed world view.  
And of course, with everyone allowed a valid personal opinion, debates on any topic can become heated.  But that's the price - and it's Always a price worth paying to protect our rights to have an opinion.  Nobody can say that one person's opinion is more valid than another person's view.  Disagreement of course is allowed.  Anybody has the right to say you or I are talking crap at any given time - but the discussion should have no presumed moderator of correct thought.  That's Incredibly dangerous and I always argue strongly against it.

So I agree with you that everything should be there on the table to discuss, (including the intricacies of the Muslim faith) freely and openly, and that nobody should try to oppress an opinion on the grounds that such opinion, or such discussions shouldn't be allowed.  By all means anyone can passionately argue against any opinion they dislike but everything is up for discussion - everything.

[carpet baboon]

But as with all religions they are man made.
So regardless of who's god is real, if any, it's about man's whim's more than anything.

That is a matter of subjectivity. It isn't the opinion of those who practise said religions (obviously).

True but as far as I'm aware all gods sent there message through prophets rather than direct mail, so the message is itself subject to the prophets (man's) interpretation, therefore man made religion.

Now I respect anyone who doesn't agree, and I will argue to the death their right to freely worship anyway they choose.
Religion is a great source of good for 99% of the time. It's a shame about that 1%

What's your evidence to say it's 1% bad, 99% good. It's lazy, wishful thinking. And is 99% good acceptable? Why not 100%

My evidence is my experience with different religions. Things I have seen. And I never said 99% was acceptable I would love e one hundred percent of course.
I like to see the good in people. I wish the world was perfect for my two kids to grow up in.
It's not though.
And yes killing people because of who they love is so against everything I belive in. So is giving them electro shock therapy to "cure" them.
I'm not saying religion is bad or one is worse. My whole point has been people choose how to interpret religion. It's people who decide to do horrific things to others. Yes religion may play a part or it could just be used as an excuse to keep others down and power for them selves.
But I have seen Muslims feeding and clothing the homeless in Birmingham, I know Christians who have gone to build schools and teach in Africa. I watched as a Sikh temple open its doors at 3am to look after a family who's house had been gutted by fire, all things I have seen with my own eyes. all because they feel that's what there faith teaches.
I choose to belive that they are the true representative of there religion, not the hideous twisted versions peddled by some.

I mean no malice to anyone and I do enjoy differing opinions as that's how we all grow. I hope you can see my point of view but I don't expect you or anyone to agree.
But if you get a chance go to a Muslim prayer hall and have a chat. Visit a sikh temple. A Jewish synagogue. As I think learning will help us all understand each other other.
And just imagine what we could be capable off if we all just got along

Have a good night everyone

[Gwlad]

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false and by the rulers as useful. Seneca.

[SecretFly]

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false and by the rulers as useful. Seneca.

Seneca - on the way to claiming himself wise, I take it?

[Gwlad]

Point is it applies today 2000 years after he said it.

There is still a significant proportion of the world that believes in a God of some sort be it man with a beard, a pointy headed floaty thing or a 4 headed man. Science hasn't answered those questions sufficiently and in fact i'd suggest that it has made religious zealotry and militant fundamentalism more of a problem.

Religion is in my opinion the scourge of the world. That some take comfort in it is their choice which i respect. But I'd like to see the end of it.

[clivemcl]

[wolfball]

Some great comments being made- to summarise a few thoughts I had as I read through them:

1) The incomes of all global economic groups have increased for the last 20 years with one massive exception - the middle class of developed democracies.
2) This will get worse. As not only will middle class incomes continue to stagnate, working/poor incomes will also stagnate decline as greater tech/automation and slow moving government combine to create an ever larger group of people who are left behind.
3) That group will lash out. As is fully understandable. But will they lash out at corporations who off shore jobs/implement automation, or political parties who block new ways of helping the working class with reeducation or a UBI? Or will they lash out at those who are always lashed out at? The other. The people who don't look, talk or think like them? The latter is apparent.
4) Certain people will take advantage of this situation. Duck. Le Pen. UKIP. There will be more.
5) With all that being said, I have little doubt that Duck is a uniquely dangerous president as he is against those parts of the system which would reign in his power.. If he acts a generic republican president (ala Bush) I disagree with his policies but I am not frightened of them. The issue is he is genuinely unstable - there is the fear. I will be delighted to be wrong on that.
5) The left cried wolf on a series of right wing politicians and so the fears on Duck seem like the typical hand wringing. This was a mistake. Duck is not Romney.
6) On maoiw's excellent long post RE mirrors etc. You didn't directly mention it, but you seemed to be invoking the veil of ignorance? Just to clarify, the veil of ignorance is the idea that you imagine creating a new society but when designing rules for your society, you are ignorant of what social position you yourself will occupy. You could turn out to be a white male farmer in Idaho or an indian cobbler in Kerala or a russian lesbian. With that starting point, how would you build the society? The idea of the thought experiment is to recognise that when some other have seeming advantages, systemic or otherwise, what we all should want is a world that enables all people to flourish. That is a mirror I will happily look at.
7) Dishwashing machines will free women from Duck's sink chaining. (see point 2 Re: automation )

Could you provide evidence for the first few points that working class groups (emphasis on working) in the UK have financially benefitted in the last 20 years?

This is a fair point, I should have said working and middle class developed world incomes.

[Sponsored content]