just seen the news

[joe-90]

Let's ban adultery and all the other deadly sins.

 

[johnny_t]

Is this a new debating technique you have invented Joe ? There are people here who want to discuss things, and the last few days have had some fairly in-depth posts discussing things seriously, and then you pop up with a one-liner implying that we can't discuss, for example, the Middle East until we have solved the problems of passive smoking, dangerous driving, orphaned kittens or every other problem in the world.

If you don't want to join in, fine, but why try to divert people from the discussions they want to have ?

 

[joe-90]

I'm highlighting hypocrisy.

 

[joe-90]

The bottom line is: (for johnnyt's benefit).

1) Israel is occupied by an occupying force.

2) Hisbullah and Hamas are just an arm of Muslim fundamentalism sweeping the globe.


...and to that there is no answer.



But talk about it if you must.

 

[johnny_t]

Very good - Only 39 minutes to think up beyond the first line. We could almost hear your lips moving.

Don't talk about it then if it doesn't interest you, or you think its pointless, and leave it to those who have knowledge and/or opinions on the subject.

There is nothing hypocritical about talking about one thing without talking about every other subject. Are you suggesting our posts should have disclaimers such as 'I also care about.......' and make sure we include everything ? Its just ridiculous and even you must know it.

Hypocritical would be if kendor was actually an Israeli tank commander. Talking about one topical subject at a time isn't.

 

[joe-90]

For all your talking you haven't resolved the issue of collateral damge. Show me a war where civilians weren't killed. It's a fact of life - or lack of it.

Death from passive smoking on the other hand is wholly preventable.

That is the point that I'm making and the point that you seemingly can't understand.

Ps when are you going to start displaying this 'knowledge' that you apparently hold?

 

[johnny_t]

Well I'm not vain enough to start posting links to where I think I may have raised valid points, so you'll have to hunt for them yourself, but generally I would say that we can all learn from listening to what everyone has to say.

It is not that I am unable to grasp your points, but I am interested to learn why you are so keen to dismiss any discussion of the Middle East once we have started getting a few threads with intelligent reasoned debate (at the risk of turning it into a big love-in, Noodlz and Pickles have both posted excellent, informative discussions and BAS's last post summarised neatly what he is trying to discuss here), but would love to take part in them if they were one-line flinging of insults.

Are we not allowed to express opinions on anything just because we can't solve them ?

 

[joe-90]

I think that if you look I've made many posts (intelligent ones) on the subject. BAS has been dominating the forum with his line about 'killing civillians'. I simply pointed out that he doesn't jump up and down when other innocent peoples of the world die or even those that die needlessly from passive smoking.

Six million children die every year needlessly - but he's never mentioned it once, not once.

It's all grandstanding and not all all genuine.

That is what I was pointing out.

MOD 2

JACK IT IN or it gets deleted (yet again)

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Am I the only one here who understands the difference between objecting to posts that say it's OK, desirable even, for people to be killed in a particular way, and not objecting to posts which have not been made, e.g. ones which say that passive smoking deaths are to be encouraged?

 

[Glassman]

Are you an ant-war protestor BAS?

Call me thick if you like (I don't mind) but I really don't understand what point you are trying to make.

Nobody is saying it's okay to kill innocent civilians or children so what are you trying to get at exactly?
I don't think you will find the answers here but does an answer to your question even exist?
Perhaps you should ask hisbolah and the Isreali's how many innocent deaths are justified.

 

[joe-90]

I think that if you look I've made many posts (intelligent ones) on the subject. BAS has been dominating the forum with his line about 'killing civillians'. I simply pointed out that he doesn't jump up and down when other innocent peoples of the world die or even those that die needlessly from passive smoking.

Six million children die every year needlessly - but he's never mentioned it once, not once.

It's all grandstanding and not all all genuine.

That is what I was pointing out.

MOD 2

JACK IT IN or it gets deleted (yet again)

Would you care to show me which part of the post breaks which forum rule? (he won't)

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Call me thick if you like (I don't mind) but I really don't understand what point you are trying to make.

Nobody is saying it's okay to kill innocent civilians or children so what are you trying to get at exactly?

I hope they drop a bomb on this pr!ck while the opportunity is there

Unless you want to claim that you are so ignorant that you didn't know that bombing like that kills innocent civilians, then what you were hoping for was something that you knew would kill innocent civilians.

And the point I was, and still am, and will keep on making until the moderators and admin have the decency to give me a proper answer, is that it seems to be OK for you to say that you want the Israelis to do something that you know will kill innocent civilians, but it seems not OK for me to explain to you just what that desire really means, and really leads to, and it seems not OK for there to be a debate on that double standard.

If you advocate killing him by dropping a bomb on him, how many other people do you think it's OK to kill at the same time?

life is cheap over there so lets up the anti and say 200

Care to reconsider your statement that "nobody is saying it's okay to kill innocent civilians or children"?

I don't think you will find the answers here but does an answer to your question even exist?

It should do.

And lets not forget that there is a corollary, for which I also want an answer - why is it acceptable for people to make posts here saying that it is OK for civilians to be killed, or calling for action that they know will result in civilians being killed? And on a wider note, why is it acceptable for people to say that all the mosques in the UK should be burned? Why is it acceptable to say that paedophiles should be tortured? Why is it acceptable to say that illegal immigrants should be shot?

Perhaps you should ask hisbolah and the Isreali's how many innocent deaths are justified.

What on earth does that have to do with the question of whether posts calling for violent and murderous acts should be permitted on this forum?

 

[joe-90]

And lets not forget that there is a corollary, for which I also want an answer - why is it acceptable for people to make posts here saying that it is OK for civilians to be killed, or calling for action that they know will result in civilians being killed? And on a wider note, why is it acceptable for people to say that all the mosques in the UK should be burned? Why is it acceptable to say that paedophiles should be tortured? Why is it acceptable to say that illegal immigrants should be shot?

More like a coronary for you BAS. It's freedom of speech.

We all have different ideas on differing situations based on our own unique experiences. Why are you so dogmatic that only your point of view matters and no other??

Why are you becoming so fanatical?

 

[hermes]

And lets not forget that there is a corollary, for which I also want an answer - why is it acceptable for people to make posts here saying that it is OK for civilians to be killed, or calling for action that they know will result in civilians being killed? And on a wider note, why is it acceptable for people to say that all the mosques in the UK should be burned? Why is it acceptable to say that paedophiles should be tortured? Why is it acceptable to say that illegal immigrants should be shot??

It would seem to me that while to some people it's not acceptable for others to say these things, for those who do make these statements it obviously is acceptable. It would appear that the moderators fall into the latter camp.

Some people hold views like these very deeply. Would you rather these people kept quiet about their opinions?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It would seem to me that while to some people it's not acceptable for others to say these things, for those who do make these statements it obviously is acceptable. It would appear that the moderators fall into the latter camp.

These are the same moderators who remove posts on the grounds of unsuitability for a "family forum".

This bias and hypocrisy must be ended.

Some people hold views like these very deeply. Would you rather these people kept quiet about their opinions?

That depends on whether there is to be a consistent approach to dealing with "unsuitability".

People keep on about free speech, but free speech is a myth. Provided they are not illegal, I have the freedom to post pornographic pictures on a website I own. I would not expect to have the same freedom here.

I expect to be able to move my bowels when I need to. I do not expect to exercise that freedom in the middle of the carpet in the saloon bar of a pub.

People do hold views deeply, and there are some who I wish would keep quiet about them because I find their views repugnant, but that is not something I can enforce.

All I want, all I have ever wanted, is for the moderators to stop hiding behind the lie of "family values" given that they permit people to advocate mass slaughter, arson, torture and murder.