Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Policeman killed in Paris; Yet another terrorist attack
Topic Started: Apr 20 2017, 09:20 PM (1,179 Views)
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
So, here we are again in France, at the Champs Elysee' where a terrorist with a Kalashnikoff opened fire on a police "minibus"?

One police officer is dead, another is injured.

The Killer was shot dead.

3 days before the French Primaries.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Not good and appalling that a policeman has died
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Apr 20 2017, 09:39 PM
Not good and appalling that a policeman has died
Yes, but what gets me is that the killer was known to the French police and was apparently under investigation, Skynews reports that a hunt is on for a second accomplice, first reports indicate that the killer travelled to France by train.....from Belgium.

Things like this will only strengthen the arm of extremist candidates in the French elections on Sunday.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Apr 20 2017, 10:03 PM


Things like this will only strengthen the arm of extremist candidates in the French elections on Sunday.
Fortunately there are not that many people in France with your mindset.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Oddball
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Yawn, yawn; yup, as have have said before guys, it is something we/Europe had better get used to, since barring divine intervention it is a phenomonon we are stuck with for a long time. If you ever happen to get in the line of fire, just give it up for 'Allah', graciously.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Is it time to declare war on terrorism ? :'(
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Bombs, shootings, multiple thousands of women and children raped all over Europe but some here will say it's fine, worth it even for the utopian dream.

Wonder what the hashtag will be? #everyfuckingweek.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
disgruntled porker
Member Avatar
Older than most people think I am.
[ *  *  * ]
An analogy for you.

Some 40years ago, the big estate just up the road from me was brilliant. A close knit community, everyone got on well with each other and everyone knew each other. Then, the council had the brilliant idea of when a property became available, put a "problem" family in so that the good families would have a positive effect on them. Guess what happened in reality. Yup, it went the other way. Good families eventually descended to being like the problem families. Now, the estate consists of people who don't give a shit about each other. More likely to rob you than help you. I feel this is what is happening on a countrywide scale, nay, a worldwide scale. Sad.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stonefish
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Good news for Marie Le Penn
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Happy Hornet
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Delf
Apr 21 2017, 07:02 AM
Bombs, shootings, multiple thousands of women and children raped all over Europe but some here will say it's fine, worth it even for the utopian dream.

Wonder what the hashtag will be? #everyfuckingweek.
Who here has said that any of these things are"fine"?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Tigger
Apr 20 2017, 11:15 PM
Rich
Apr 20 2017, 10:03 PM


Things like this will only strengthen the arm of extremist candidates in the French elections on Sunday.
Fortunately there are not that many people in France with your mindset.
Again, you seem not to understand other people, Chinese last time, now French.

National Front growing support is in the younger generation, if these events keep happening then she's a shoe-in for the election.

People like you attack your own too quickly, they are just worried and wondering how it's going to be fixed, we need a strong front against this instead of ripping each other apart, because some might say something non-political correct things

Our police are dying for the stupid mistakes of our politicians.
Edited by Dan1989, Apr 21 2017, 08:18 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Happy Hornet
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 08:17 AM
Tigger
Apr 20 2017, 11:15 PM
Rich
Apr 20 2017, 10:03 PM


Things like this will only strengthen the arm of extremist candidates in the French elections on Sunday.
Fortunately there are not that many people in France with your mindset.
Again, you seem not to understand other people, Chinese last time, now French.

National Front growing support is in the younger generation, if these events keep happening then she's a shoe-in for the election.

People like you attack your own too quickly, they are just worried and wondering how it's going to be fixed, we need a strong front against this instead of ripping each other apart, because some might say something non-political correct things

Our police are dying for the stupid mistakes of our politicians.
I agree that we need to present a united front instead of ripping each other apart. That's what I and others have been saying for a while now, turning Muslims against non-Muslims is exactly what these jihadi scumbags want.

I for one refuse.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Happy Hornet
Apr 21 2017, 08:26 AM
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 08:17 AM
Tigger
Apr 20 2017, 11:15 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Again, you seem not to understand other people, Chinese last time, now French.

National Front growing support is in the younger generation, if these events keep happening then she's a shoe-in for the election.

People like you attack your own too quickly, they are just worried and wondering how it's going to be fixed, we need a strong front against this instead of ripping each other apart, because some might say something non-political correct things

Our police are dying for the stupid mistakes of our politicians.
I agree that we need to present a united front instead of ripping each other apart. That's what I and others have been saying for a while now, turning Muslims against non-Muslims is exactly what these jihadi scumbags want.

I for one refuse.
I never agreed with attacking Muslim themselves, but I believe that /S: Religion deserves everything it gets, which is where the issues arise, we were never been this nice to Christianity or Catholicism in the modern age, we've been attacking and denigrating them for years, but somehow have to treat this religion like it has extra privileges.

But sadly, and you won't like this, for things to improve Muslims and Islam have to relent and bow down to Europe, or it will get worse, most of Europe isn't as soft as we are(Whatever Tigger says otherwise), hence the fast growing Fascist movements and even the Communists who just despises all religions, you know opium for the masses.

I am anti-Islam, as-well as anti all religion and if they can not accept such opposition then it will never get better, Christianity & Catholicism bent the knee.
Edited by Dan1989, Apr 21 2017, 08:40 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Happy Hornet
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 08:30 AM
Happy Hornet
Apr 21 2017, 08:26 AM
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 08:17 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I agree that we need to present a united front instead of ripping each other apart. That's what I and others have been saying for a while now, turning Muslims against non-Muslims is exactly what these jihadi scumbags want.

I for one refuse.
I never agreed with attacking Muslim themselves, but I believe that /S: Religion deserves everything it gets, which is where the issues arise, we were never been this nice to Christianity or Catholicism in the modern age, we've been attacking and denigrating them for years, but somehow have to treat this religion like it has extra privileges.

But sadly, and you won't like this, for things to improve Muslims and Islam have to relent and bow down to Europe, or it will get worse, most of Europe isn't as soft as we are(Whatever Tigger says otherwise), hence the fast growing Fascist movements and even the Communist who just despises all religions, you know opium for the masses.

I am anti-Islam, as-well as anti all religion and if they can not accept such opposition then it will never get better.
I don't know if what you say about Christianity is entirely true, look at the hoo hah over the recent easter egg fiasco, the winterval myth that gets peddled every Christmas and then of course 26 seats in the HoL reserved for CofE bishops. Imagine the sh1t storm there would be if it was announced that from now on 26 seats had to be reserved for imams.

I think what's needed is a united front against extremists in both communities.
Edited by Happy Hornet, Apr 21 2017, 08:40 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Happy Hornet
Apr 21 2017, 08:40 AM
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 08:30 AM
Happy Hornet
Apr 21 2017, 08:26 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I never agreed with attacking Muslim themselves, but I believe that /S: Religion deserves everything it gets, which is where the issues arise, we were never been this nice to Christianity or Catholicism in the modern age, we've been attacking and denigrating them for years, but somehow have to treat this religion like it has extra privileges.

But sadly, and you won't like this, for things to improve Muslims and Islam have to relent and bow down to Europe, or it will get worse, most of Europe isn't as soft as we are(Whatever Tigger says otherwise), hence the fast growing Fascist movements and even the Communist who just despises all religions, you know opium for the masses.

I am anti-Islam, as-well as anti all religion and if they can not accept such opposition then it will never get better.
I don't know if what you say about Christianity is entirely true, look at the hoo hah over the recent easter egg fiasco, the winterval myth that gets peddled every Christmas and then of course 26 seats in the HoL reserved for CofE bishops. Imagine the sh1t storm there would be if it was announced that from now on 26 seats had to be reserved for imams.

I think what's needed is a united front against extremists in both communities.
Yeah, that issue, where everyone laughed at it because firstly as most people pointed out was a pagan idea taken from them, though no terrorism or riots, which we've seen with Islam, for just drawing a funny picture, just one example.

I would kick out the Bishops as-well, no religion please, we were very close to that dream, but we let in more religions :banghead:

You've never get a united front, that's a lie we tell ourselves, for the most part we are ideological opposed to Islam, nearly everything we hold dear they disagree with.

This is the major flaw with multiculturalism and multiple-religions, you lose any chance of unity that's the price of it, but people have been quite naive in the modern age, too many drum circles while being intoxicated.
Edited by Dan1989, Apr 21 2017, 08:50 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Happy Hornet
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 08:47 AM
Happy Hornet
Apr 21 2017, 08:40 AM
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 08:30 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I don't know if what you say about Christianity is entirely true, look at the hoo hah over the recent easter egg fiasco, the winterval myth that gets peddled every Christmas and then of course 26 seats in the HoL reserved for CofE bishops. Imagine the sh1t storm there would be if it was announced that from now on 26 seats had to be reserved for imams.

I think what's needed is a united front against extremists in both communities.
Yeah, that issue, where everyone laughed at it because firstly as most people pointed out was pagan idea taken from them, though no terrorism or riots, which we've seen with Islam, for just drawing a funny picture, just one example.

I would kick out the Bishops as-well, no religion please, we were very close to that dream, but we let in more religions :banghead:

You've never get a united front, that's a lie we tell ourselves, for the most part we are ideological opposed to Islam, nearly everything we hold dear they disagree with.

This is the major flaw with multiculturalism and multiple-religions, you lose any chance of unity that's the price of it.
We don't have a united front that's true but it doesn't mean we can't.

I'm fundamentally opposed to the views and beliefs of some folk here but that doesn't mean I wouldn't stand shoulder to shoulder with them if somebody threatened their physical safety or right to live in their own country.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Happy Hornet
Apr 21 2017, 08:53 AM
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 08:47 AM
Happy Hornet
Apr 21 2017, 08:40 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Yeah, that issue, where everyone laughed at it because firstly as most people pointed out was pagan idea taken from them, though no terrorism or riots, which we've seen with Islam, for just drawing a funny picture, just one example.

I would kick out the Bishops as-well, no religion please, we were very close to that dream, but we let in more religions :banghead:

You've never get a united front, that's a lie we tell ourselves, for the most part we are ideological opposed to Islam, nearly everything we hold dear they disagree with.

This is the major flaw with multiculturalism and multiple-religions, you lose any chance of unity that's the price of it.
We don't have a united front that's true but it doesn't mean we can't.

I'm fundamentally opposed to the views and beliefs of some folk here but that doesn't mean I wouldn't stand shoulder to shoulder with them if somebody threatened their physical safety or right to live in their own country.
We will never have unity, why we have such divergent views, that's the price of it, people who believe in multiculturalism should own up to that fact, it's hard to find unity when there is one culture and religion.

I wouldn't stand with any religious person, they hold faith in a god over people, their loyalties are tainted. I wouldn't condone any harm to them, but I wouldn't protect their feelings on the matter which seems to the crux of the problem, they seem eternally offended that we oppose such views, even though we are just as critical to Christianity & Catholicism.

As I said, highly naive people who were tricked by people who wanted cheap labour have put us right in the crapper any person with half of brain wouldn't have put us in such a situation, who actually cared about social cohesion, it was bearable when numbers were very low.

Edited by Dan1989, Apr 21 2017, 09:07 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Happy Hornet
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 09:00 AM
Happy Hornet
Apr 21 2017, 08:53 AM
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 08:47 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
We don't have a united front that's true but it doesn't mean we can't.

I'm fundamentally opposed to the views and beliefs of some folk here but that doesn't mean I wouldn't stand shoulder to shoulder with them if somebody threatened their physical safety or right to live in their own country.
We will never have unity, why we have such divergent views, that's the price of it, people who believe in multiculturalism should own up to that fact, it's hard to find unity when there is one culture and religion.

I wouldn't stand with any religious person, they hold faith in a god over people, their loyalties are tainted. I wouldn't condone any harm to them, but I wouldn't protect their feelings on the matter which seems to the crux of the problem, they seem eternally offended that we oppose such views, even though we are just as critical to Christianity & Catholicism.

As I said, highly naive people who were tricked by people who wanted cheap labour have put us right in the crapper any person with half of brain wouldn't have put us in such a situation, who actually cared about social cohesion, it was bearable when numbers were very low.

A free society means having to tolerate views and opinions you find repugnant. On the flip side people who find your views offensive have to lump it as well.

If we're not all prepared to defend this then we'll lose it at some point.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Happy Hornet
Apr 21 2017, 09:18 AM
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 09:00 AM
Happy Hornet
Apr 21 2017, 08:53 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
We will never have unity, why we have such divergent views, that's the price of it, people who believe in multiculturalism should own up to that fact, it's hard to find unity when there is one culture and religion.

I wouldn't stand with any religious person, they hold faith in a god over people, their loyalties are tainted. I wouldn't condone any harm to them, but I wouldn't protect their feelings on the matter which seems to the crux of the problem, they seem eternally offended that we oppose such views, even though we are just as critical to Christianity & Catholicism.

As I said, highly naive people who were tricked by people who wanted cheap labour have put us right in the crapper any person with half of brain wouldn't have put us in such a situation, who actually cared about social cohesion, it was bearable when numbers were very low.

A free society means having to tolerate views and opinions you find repugnant. On the flip side people who find your views offensive have to lump it as well.

If we're not all prepared to defend this then we'll lose it at some point.
No, I didn't actually vote for a open society, but a British society, I don't even like public religions, because I see that as a massive issue hard to disagree with the current climate.

At no point have we voted on the current immigration policy or acceptance of other cultures.

It seems you just don't want a cohesive society, because you believe naively that people who fundamentally disagree can form a binding society, that's never going to happen, neither side really wants that, hence the ghettos people have volunteered to form, we haven't forced anyone.

Also you do realise that toleration is quite a bad thing, because it means we don't actually like it, we are just putting up with it, you don't need tolerance if you like it, tolerance is the first sign of an issue, then as you ignore it, it turns into opposition.

Edited by Dan1989, Apr 21 2017, 09:37 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Happy Hornet
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 09:26 AM
Happy Hornet
Apr 21 2017, 09:18 AM
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 09:00 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
A free society means having to tolerate views and opinions you find repugnant. On the flip side people who find your views offensive have to lump it as well.

If we're not all prepared to defend this then we'll lose it at some point.
No, I didn't actually vote for a open society, but a British society, I don't even like public religions, because I see that as a massive issue hard to disagree with the current climate.

At no point have we voted on the current immigration policy or acceptance of other cultures.

It seems you just don't want a cohesive society, because you believe naively that people who fundamentally disagree can form a binding society, that's never going to happen, neither side really wants that, hence the ghettos people have volunteered to form, we haven't forced anyone.

Also you do realise that toleration is quite a bad thing, because it means we don't actually like it, we are just putting up with it, you don't need tolerance if you like it, tolerance is the first sign on an issue, then as you ignore it, it turns into opposition.

So I have to tolerate people who have what I consider to be poisonous and spiteful beliefs but you shouldn't?

There are people who believe and express the opinion that people like me and my family should be forcibly removed from our own country, some of them have even formed political parties and campaigned to this end. I have always been told, often in a very patronising tone I might add, that this was simply the price one has to pay for living in a free society.

So if me and mine have to suck it up, why can't you? What makes you and your wants and needs more important than mine?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Happy Hornet
Apr 21 2017, 09:40 AM
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 09:26 AM
Happy Hornet
Apr 21 2017, 09:18 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
No, I didn't actually vote for a open society, but a British society, I don't even like public religions, because I see that as a massive issue hard to disagree with the current climate.

At no point have we voted on the current immigration policy or acceptance of other cultures.

It seems you just don't want a cohesive society, because you believe naively that people who fundamentally disagree can form a binding society, that's never going to happen, neither side really wants that, hence the ghettos people have volunteered to form, we haven't forced anyone.

Also you do realise that toleration is quite a bad thing, because it means we don't actually like it, we are just putting up with it, you don't need tolerance if you like it, tolerance is the first sign on an issue, then as you ignore it, it turns into opposition.

So I have to tolerate people who have what I consider to be poisonous and spiteful beliefs but you shouldn't?

There are people who believe and express the opinion that people like me and my family should be forcibly removed from our own country, some of them have even formed political parties and campaigned to this end. I have always been told, often in a very patronising tone I might add, that this was simply the price one has to pay for living in a free society.

So if me and mine have to suck it up, why can't you? What makes you and your wants and needs more important than mine?
Why should I tolerant views I disagree with, this is the reason why we have a democratic nation, my job is the gain enough support to enact such changes.

Also we don't actually stay true to such open society, because we ban many political parties and movements.

You shouldn't tolerant such, you should gain support for your views so again, you gain the democratic will to enact your views, also a open society doesn't mean that, you talking about free speech. Open society is about accepting/tolerating everything, which is impossible, hence I disagree with the notion, the only trick is to keep it peaceful and use our democratic machinery to enact change.

Your last sentence is covered by the two above, one should convince the people.

I am a democrat, I believe in the will of the people and when the people do vote it seems they agree that we aren't going a in direction that has major support, bad decision have torn us apart, but minority rule will do that, how can 600 people believe they can govern for the rest.

Edited by Dan1989, Apr 21 2017, 09:54 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Happy Hornet
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 09:48 AM
Happy Hornet
Apr 21 2017, 09:40 AM
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 09:26 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
So I have to tolerate people who have what I consider to be poisonous and spiteful beliefs but you shouldn't?

There are people who believe and express the opinion that people like me and my family should be forcibly removed from our own country, some of them have even formed political parties and campaigned to this end. I have always been told, often in a very patronising tone I might add, that this was simply the price one has to pay for living in a free society.

So if me and mine have to suck it up, why can't you? What makes you and your wants and needs more important than mine?
Why should I tolerant views I disagree with, this is the reason why we have a democratic nation, my job is the gain enough support to enact such changes.

Also we don't actually stay true to such open society, because we ban many political parties and movements.

You shouldn't tolerant such, you should gain support for your views so again, you gain the democratic will to enact your views, also a open society doesn't mean that, you talking about free speech. Open society is about accepting/tolerating everything, which is impossible, hence I disagree with the notion, the only trick is to keep it peaceful and use our democratic machinery to enact change.

Your last sentence is covered by the two above, one should convince the people.

I am a democrat, I believe in the will of the people and when the people do vote it seems they agree that we aren't going a in direction that has major support, bad decision have torn us apart, but minority rule will do that, how can 600 people believe they can govern for the rest.

Well if you're a democrat who respects the will of the people surely you should respect the current democratic status quo which includes freedom of religous practice?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Curious Cdn
Member Avatar
Frozen Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Apr 20 2017, 09:20 PM
So, here we are again in France, at the Champs Elysee' where a terrorist with a Kalashnikoff opened fire on a police "minibus"?

One police officer is dead, another is injured.

The Killer was shot dead.

3 days before the French Primaries.
The French are on the front lines, just as they were 100 years ago.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Happy Hornet
Apr 21 2017, 09:56 AM
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 09:48 AM
Happy Hornet
Apr 21 2017, 09:40 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Why should I tolerant views I disagree with, this is the reason why we have a democratic nation, my job is the gain enough support to enact such changes.

Also we don't actually stay true to such open society, because we ban many political parties and movements.

You shouldn't tolerant such, you should gain support for your views so again, you gain the democratic will to enact your views, also a open society doesn't mean that, you talking about free speech. Open society is about accepting/tolerating everything, which is impossible, hence I disagree with the notion, the only trick is to keep it peaceful and use our democratic machinery to enact change.

Your last sentence is covered by the two above, one should convince the people.

I am a democrat, I believe in the will of the people and when the people do vote it seems they agree that we aren't going a in direction that has major support, bad decision have torn us apart, but minority rule will do that, how can 600 people believe they can govern for the rest.

Well if you're a democrat who respects the will of the people surely you should respect the current democratic status quo which includes freedom of religous practice?
That's not how it works, being a democrat means you use the democratic process to change the things you disagree with, I don't like religion being publicly shown, as most of my generation as-well, just have to wait until the oldies go, then I could probably support a campaign for its removal.

Also we've never democratically elected a government or referendum agreeing to that, it's a ECHR ruling not British one.
Edited by Dan1989, Apr 21 2017, 11:09 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Happy Hornet
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 11:05 AM
Happy Hornet
Apr 21 2017, 09:56 AM
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 09:48 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Well if you're a democrat who respects the will of the people surely you should respect the current democratic status quo which includes freedom of religous practice?
That's not how it works, being a democrat means you use the democratic process to change the things you disagree with, I don't like religion being publicly shown, as most of my generation as-well, just have to wait until the oldies go, then I could probably support a campaign for its removal.

Also we've never democratically elected a government or referendum agreeing to that, it's a ECHR ruling not British one.
But the current elected government supports the continuation of freedom of religious practice.

You say that you shouldn't have to tolerate certain things, but as a democrat surely you do until such time that you have a democratic mandate to change it?

And even then, are you going to ban people from campaigning to reinstate it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Happy Hornet
Apr 21 2017, 11:16 AM
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 11:05 AM
Happy Hornet
Apr 21 2017, 09:56 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
That's not how it works, being a democrat means you use the democratic process to change the things you disagree with, I don't like religion being publicly shown, as most of my generation as-well, just have to wait until the oldies go, then I could probably support a campaign for its removal.

Also we've never democratically elected a government or referendum agreeing to that, it's a ECHR ruling not British one.
But the current elected government supports the continuation of freedom of religious practice.

You say that you shouldn't have to tolerate certain things, but as a democrat surely you do until such time that you have a democratic mandate to change it?

And even then, are you going to ban people from campaigning to reinstate it?
Yes, but as I said numerous of times, you try to gain support until you can change it = democrat.

Hey, I didn't say I never tolerate, but that I shouldn't have to permanently tolerant things, which seems to be your viewpoint, also by the act of campaigning for change I am in action not tolerating it. toleration is pretty much inaction against the things you disagree with.

Nope, why would I, it would be my job or group or whatever to convince people to keep such a law.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Happy Hornet
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 11:24 AM
Happy Hornet
Apr 21 2017, 11:16 AM
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 11:05 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
But the current elected government supports the continuation of freedom of religious practice.

You say that you shouldn't have to tolerate certain things, but as a democrat surely you do until such time that you have a democratic mandate to change it?

And even then, are you going to ban people from campaigning to reinstate it?
Yes, but as I said numerous of times, you try to gain support until you can change it = democrat.

Hey, I didn't say I never tolerate, but that I shouldn't have to permanently tolerant things, which seems to be your viewpoint, also by the act of campaigning for change I am in action not tolerating it. toleration is pretty much inaction against the things you disagree with.

Nope, why would I, it would be my job or group or whatever to convince people to keep such a law.
But how can you have a true democracy without freedom of expression?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Happy Hornet
Apr 21 2017, 11:30 AM
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 11:24 AM
Happy Hornet
Apr 21 2017, 11:16 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Yes, but as I said numerous of times, you try to gain support until you can change it = democrat.

Hey, I didn't say I never tolerate, but that I shouldn't have to permanently tolerant things, which seems to be your viewpoint, also by the act of campaigning for change I am in action not tolerating it. toleration is pretty much inaction against the things you disagree with.

Nope, why would I, it would be my job or group or whatever to convince people to keep such a law.
But how can you have a true democracy without freedom of expression?

That's never been a pre-requisite of Democracy and we've actively censored and banned certain political parties & movements.

Also, I said banned in public, not banned in the sense they can not hold a religion, just no more Churches, Temples, Mosques.

There's only one thing needed for a Democracy, everyone of legal age gets a vote, anything else is debatable.

Also religion is so bad, anything comparable has already been banned.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Happy Hornet
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 11:34 AM
Happy Hornet
Apr 21 2017, 11:30 AM
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 11:24 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
But how can you have a true democracy without freedom of expression?

That's never been a pre-requisite of Democracy and we've actively censored and banned certain political parties & movements.

Also, I said banned in public, not banned in the sense they can not hold a religion, just no more Churches, Temples, Mosques.

There's only one thing needed for a Democracy, everyone of legal age gets a vote, anything else is debatable.

Also religion is so bad, anything comparable has already been banned.
If religion is banned in public how are the opposition supposed to democratically campaign to overturn the ban?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Happy Hornet
Apr 21 2017, 11:42 AM
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 11:34 AM
Happy Hornet
Apr 21 2017, 11:30 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
That's never been a pre-requisite of Democracy and we've actively censored and banned certain political parties & movements.

Also, I said banned in public, not banned in the sense they can not hold a religion, just no more Churches, Temples, Mosques.

There's only one thing needed for a Democracy, everyone of legal age gets a vote, anything else is debatable.

Also religion is so bad, anything comparable has already been banned.
If religion is banned in public how are the opposition supposed to democratically campaign to overturn the ban?
That question makes no sense.

How is banning public religious icons, make it impossible for them to campaign for its return?

Paedophilia is banned but people are still able to campaign for its legalisation and their freedom of choice and expression is banned same for many drugs, banning something does make it impossible to campaign for removing of the ban.
Edited by Dan1989, Apr 21 2017, 11:53 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Happy Hornet
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 11:53 AM
Happy Hornet
Apr 21 2017, 11:42 AM
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 11:34 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
If religion is banned in public how are the opposition supposed to democratically campaign to overturn the ban?
That question makes no sense.

How is banning public religious icons, make it impossible for them to campaign for its return?

Paedophilia is banned but people are still able to campaign for its legalisation and their freedom of choice and expression is banned same for many drugs, banning something does make it impossible to campaign for removing of the ban.
You said you were going to ban religion in public. How can the other side campaign if they can't publicly discuss or advocate religion?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Happy Hornet
Apr 21 2017, 12:04 PM
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 11:53 AM
Happy Hornet
Apr 21 2017, 11:42 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
That question makes no sense.

How is banning public religious icons, make it impossible for them to campaign for its return?

Paedophilia is banned but people are still able to campaign for its legalisation and their freedom of choice and expression is banned same for many drugs, banning something does make it impossible to campaign for removing of the ban.
You said you were going to ban religion in public. How can the other side campaign if they can't publicly discuss or advocate religion?

So in your mind, banning the practice of religion in public, means no-one can talk about it, are you really saying us two are now practising religion because we are talking about it?

Again, I lead you to my last point, Drugs(many) and Paedophilia are banned, but it does not stop people talking about it, or advocating for it?

Edited by Dan1989, Apr 21 2017, 12:10 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 11:34 AM
There's only one thing needed for a Democracy, everyone of legal age gets a vote, anything else is debatable. . .
:nono:

For a start everyone of legal age has to be able to make a reasonably informed vote and that requires that everyone has a reasonable right of expression of their views for people to consider

In 1997 we democratically voted for a party committed to make this article UK law (as was done in the 1998 HRA). Can I ask please what is your issue with its wording? Seems fine and balanced to me

Quote:
 
Article 10
Freedom of expression


1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary
.
Banning expression of religion because you don't like it would seem to be obviously excessively repressive.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
marybrown
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 12:07 PM
Happy Hornet
Apr 21 2017, 12:04 PM
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 11:53 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
You said you were going to ban religion in public. How can the other side campaign if they can't publicly discuss or advocate religion?

So in your mind, banning the practice of religion in public, means no-one can talk about it

it is not the banning of religion in public..it is the private religions we are worried about...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Apr 21 2017, 12:38 PM
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 11:34 AM
There's only one thing needed for a Democracy, everyone of legal age gets a vote, anything else is debatable. . .
:nono:

For a start everyone of legal age has to be able to make a reasonably informed vote and that requires that everyone has a reasonable right of expression of their views for people to consider

In 1997 we democratically voted for a party committed to make this article UK law (as was done in the 1998 HRA). Can I ask please what is your issue with its wording? Seems fine and balanced to me

Quote:
 
Article 10
Freedom of expression


1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary
.
Banning expression of religion because you don't like it would seem to be obviously excessively repressive.
Nope, all Democracies need only is a voting population, that's it, added extras aren't a prerequisite and are subject to change.

Also it doesn't matter if you agree with their voting proclivities, also it's down to the person in question to keep themselves informed, in the age of the internet, there isn't much excuse.

Hey, I'm fine with that, I'd quite happily repress religion, it's the most destructive force currently going, also we've banned less volatile things, anyway time is on my side as-well as most of my generation are known for being the most anti-religious generation.
Edited by Dan1989, Apr 21 2017, 01:22 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
marybrown
Apr 21 2017, 12:40 PM
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 12:07 PM
Happy Hornet
Apr 21 2017, 12:04 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
So in your mind, banning the practice of religion in public, means no-one can talk about it

it is not the banning of religion in public..it is the private religions we are worried about...
That's... nonsensical, I am not getting issues from Pagans which is underground movement for the most part, they don't get much publicity.

Nope it's those mainstream ones, but while we at it, let's ban paganism as-well, it's only fair.

Unless you mean something completely different when you say private religions, because the main ones aren't private.
Edited by Dan1989, Apr 21 2017, 12:51 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
marybrown
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 12:50 PM
marybrown
Apr 21 2017, 12:40 PM
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 12:07 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
it is not the banning of religion in public..it is the private religions we are worried about...
That's... nonsensical, I am not getting issues from Pagans which is underground movement for the most part, they don't get much publicity.

Nope it's those mainstream ones, but while we at it, let's ban paganism as-well, it's only fair.

Unless you mean something completely different when you say private religions, because the main ones aren't private.
yes but Pagans don't bomb you..or put up innocent people's beheadings up on facebook??

Just a thought...

or send their small children out with a bomb belt around their waists..stone women to death..or throw gays from the top of a high rise car park??
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
marybrown
Apr 21 2017, 12:55 PM
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 12:50 PM
marybrown
Apr 21 2017, 12:40 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
That's... nonsensical, I am not getting issues from Pagans which is underground movement for the most part, they don't get much publicity.

Nope it's those mainstream ones, but while we at it, let's ban paganism as-well, it's only fair.

Unless you mean something completely different when you say private religions, because the main ones aren't private.
yes but Pagans don't bomb you..or put up innocent people's beheadings up on facebook??

Just a thought...

or send their small children out with a bomb belt around their waists..stone women to death..or throw gays from the top of a high rise car park??
Yeah, but they used to cut open animals and sacrifice people, they too have a rather dodgy history.

Also we can not be seen to be favouring one over the others.

Ban those druids & witches, also they are pacifist probably just accept it.

Science supremacy!
Edited by Dan1989, Apr 21 2017, 01:00 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 12:47 PM
Steve K
Apr 21 2017, 12:38 PM
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 11:34 AM
There's only one thing needed for a Democracy, everyone of legal age gets a vote, anything else is debatable. . .
:nono:

For a start everyone of legal age has to be able to make a reasonably informed vote and that requires that everyone has a reasonable right of expression of their views for people to consider

In 1997 we democratically voted for a party committed to make this article UK law (as was done in the 1998 HRA). Can I ask please what is your issue with its wording? Seems fine and balanced to me

Quote:
 
Article 10
Freedom of expression


1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary
.
Banning expression of religion because you don't like it would seem to be obviously excessively repressive.
Nope, all Democracies need only is a voting population, that's it, added extras aren't a prerequisite and are subject to change.

Also it doesn't matter if you agree with their voting proclivities, also it's down to the person in question to keep themselves informed, in the age of the internet, there isn't much excuse.

Hey, I'm fine with that, I quite happily repress religion, it's the most destructive force currently going, also we've banned less volatile things, anyway time is on my side as-well as most of my generation are known for being the most anti-religious generation.
:tumble: ^

You appear to think a country where everyone was fed and only fed state propaganda would be a good Democracy. You must have so loved Soviet Russia and still love Iran, Egypt etc

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Apr 21 2017, 01:03 PM
Dan1989
Apr 21 2017, 12:47 PM
Steve K
Apr 21 2017, 12:38 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepreasonably informed voteArticle 10
Freedom of expression
Nope, all Democracies need only is a voting population, that's it, added extras aren't a prerequisite and are subject to change.

Also it doesn't matter if you agree with their voting proclivities, also it's down to the person in question to keep themselves informed, in the age of the internet, there isn't much excuse.

Hey, I'm fine with that, I quite happily repress religion, it's the most destructive force currently going, also we've banned less volatile things, anyway time is on my side as-well as most of my generation are known for being the most anti-religious generation.
:tumble: ^

You appear to think a country where everyone was fed and only fed state propaganda would be a good Democracy. You must have so loved Soviet Russia and still love Iran, Egypt etc

That my friend is a strawman, didn't say any of that.

I said a Democracy only needs a voting population, didn't say that was good or bad, you assumed which is the mother of all fuck-ups.

Also, how in this age can people not find the relevant information, even China who actively censors the internet still can not stop people from using proxies.

I just think it's fair to ban religion, it's terrible and if a person can get a mandate or a vote agreeing to it, then good, it's done enough damage through human history, also there's other countries far more sympathetic to those religions.

Edited by Dan1989, Apr 21 2017, 01:24 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Europe · Next Topic »
Add Reply