Farage Kent Coast discuss

motorbiking said:
Rightly or wrongly acceptable behaviour was defined by religious teachings
Click to expand...

You are mistaken.

You are also ignorant of the advantages to the gene pool of social animals helping other members of their group.
 
Sponsored Links
Are you suggesting that Great Apes don't live in social groups for mutual benefit?
 
Sponsored Links
I am suggesting they live in social groups for mutual benefit.

The clue is in my words.

This behaviour is not caused by laws or religion.
 
festive said:
... i see myself as both.

..... IF my ass was being peppered with all sorts it's highly likley evasive action would cause me to seek refuse in the first safe country.
Being a villain with time gives you time to plan? .
Click to expand...
I assume you are accepting that refugees (and criminals) leave their country of origin (their abode) at different times and urgency, depending on their foresight, the situation on the ground, their ability to escape, etc.
No-one in their right mind would wait until their "ass was being peppered with all sorts ", but would either leave before that happens, or would lie low until they deemed it safe to leave.
Therefore, we can assume that once in a relative safe position, either before they leave or afterwards, they will plan, re-evaluate, and pursue their preferred option.
You obviously have a very jaundiced view of how refugees escape their situation, and refuse to consider any other view, relying on your phraseology of "IF my ass was being peppered with all sorts it's highly likley (sic) evasive action would cause me to seek refuse in the first safe country".
Even allowing for your jaundiced view of how refugees escape, you refuse to consider that once in a safe place, the refugees can re-assess, re-evaluate and plan their next steps.
You refuse to accept that it is not only war that causes refugees to flee. There are many other causes of refugees.
 
motorbiking said:
Rightly or wrongly acceptable behaviour was defined by religious teachings and these rules still exist and are enforced today.
Click to expand...
Religions often to codify behaviour, but saying they were the original source is difficult to support. Equally the number of religious laws that are no longer in force, or are actively illegal now weakens your case.

It's like claiming that the sunrise is defined by the app on my phone that tells me when it'll happen.
Your views on anthropology aren't backed up by science. Evolution determines survival of the fittest. Our very rules on acceptable behaviour and religious teachings are at odds with this. From an evolutionary perspective there is nothing to be gained from protecting the less fortunate, healing the sick, caring for the poor etc.
Click to expand...
Actually that point of views isn't backed up by science. There is something to be gained by supporting others to boost the odds of your genetic material continuing.

Survival of the fittest is a massive simplification, but it doesn't apply to the individual alone. The 'fittest' tribe will outperform and out breed the weaker one. Fitness might be the strength of your throwing arm, or it might be your ability to make it through a hard winter through cooperation.
 
JohnD said:
I am suggesting they live in social groups for mutual benefit.

The clue is in my words.

This behaviour is not caused by laws or religion.
Click to expand...
Both laws and religion are man-made. Of course animals do not behave according to laws or religion.
But the major difference is that nation states determine the laws that must be upheld. They reserve the right to punish offenders who do not obey those laws. That does not happen in the animal kingdom.

In other aspects, MPs still swear an oath of allegiance, based on religion, "I swear by Almighty God..So help me God".
For sure their is an alternative affirmation, in the last 30 years or so, to allow for plurality of religion. But for the previous 150 years or so, the oath has been based on religion. You can't re-write history.
 
IT Minion said:
Religions often to codify behaviour, but saying they were the original source is difficult to support. Equally the number of religious laws that are no longer in force, or are actively illegal now weakens your case.

It's like claiming that the sunrise is defined by the app on my phone that tells me when it'll happen. Actually that point of views isn't backed up by science. There is something to be gained by supporting others to boost the odds of your genetic material continuing.

Survival of the fittest is a massive simplification, but it doesn't apply to the individual alone. The 'fittest' tribe will outperform and out breed the weaker one. Fitness might be the strength of your throwing arm, or it might be your ability to make it through a hard winter through cooperation.
Click to expand...
I think we straying from the original point.
It was about whether England is a secular or a religious state. (not a practising religious nation, but having an adopted religion on which many of its fundamentals rely).
Then we strayed onto whether laws were influenced by that religion. I don't think anyone is suggesting that survival is dependent on adopting a religion
 
Bobby Dazzler said:
I think we straying from the original point.
It was about whether England is a secular or a religious state. (not a practising religious nation, but having an adopted religion on which many of its fundamentals rely).
Then we strayed onto whether laws were influenced by that religion. I don't think anyone is suggesting that survival is dependent on adopting a religion
Click to expand...
On which the fundamentals were based, now they don't rely on them at all.

We're not a theocracy, but we're a religious state in name if not in reality.
 
IT Minion said:
On which the fundamentals were based, now they don't rely on them at all.

We're not a theocracy, but we're a religious state in name if not in reality.
Click to expand...
"Don't rely on them", "are not imposed buy them", all interpretations of the original "influenced by religion".
Many of our laws, even our fundamental beliefs, are influenced by the historic religion of the state.
I would even suggest some of our prejudices, possibly now illegal, but still practised, derive from our state religion.
Many of our state ceremonies are still based on and in religion.
 
Bobby Dazzler said:
Many of our laws, even our fundamental beliefs, are influenced by the historic religion of the state.
Click to expand...

Nope.

Our religions base their rules on socially accepted behaviour.

Humans (and other animals) are genetically programmed not to murder other members of their own species. Humans live in family groups which are interdependent.

So the religion takes on these practices and says "thou shalt not kill" and "honour thy father and thy mother."

Social groups need to treat members with a degree of fairness, otherwise they will fall out and lose cohesion and the benefits of mutual support. Hence "thou shalt not steal" and "cursed be he that moves his neighbours landmark" (or fence)

It is not the religion leading human behaviour.

It is human behaviour leading religion.
 
Bobby Dazzler said:
I assume you are accepting that refugees (and criminals) leave their country of origin (their abode) at different times and urgency, depending on their foresight, the situation on the ground, their ability to escape, etc.
No-one in their right mind would wait until their "ass was being peppered with all sorts ", but would either leave before that happens, or would lie low until they deemed it safe to leave.
Therefore, we can assume that once in a relative safe position, either before they leave or afterwards, they will plan, re-evaluate, and pursue their preferred option.
You obviously have a very jaundiced view of how refugees escape their situation, and refuse to consider any other view, relying on your phraseology of "IF my ass was being peppered with all sorts it's highly likley (sic) evasive action would cause me to seek refuse in the first safe country".
Even allowing for your jaundiced view of how refugees escape, you refuse to consider that once in a safe place, the refugees can re-assess, re-evaluate and plan their next steps.
You refuse to accept that it is not only war that causes refugees to flee. There are many other causes of refugees.
Click to expand...

Oh shoosh such piffle and speculation how can you possibly summarise all my neural thoughts from a few lines of chat, for the boring record yes i agree with you of course once safe and not being peppered with bullets they have time to think evaluate calculate etc blah blah.

Missing the point. How come so many are

Coming across on a feking dinghy ILLEGALLY
French are assisting them
What how many are refugee or migrants or just criminals posing as such.
How many just end up slaves to criminals.
We already have enough homeless ENGLISH service men and women etc how we going to deal with more?

Bottom line is.

There are many countries in the world i would like to live does a civil war in your own give you automatic rights to travel all the round the world and plonk your ass in that country and claim citizenship just like that?
I know a few places i would like to be but i can't do that, what gives them the right above other humans to do so?

Also i find your name distracting it's like a cross between a tacky game show host and a sex toy, can we change it please?
 
JohnD said:
interested to see the numbers you have obtained. Where did you get them?
Click to expand...
Hello Boris lover im sending you a pair of underpants with his face on the front, no spotwelding! pm me your address (y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top