Potus ???

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Discrimination on the basis of religion would be proscribed as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.

 

No issue with that part of the post as you say - you treat them all with equal disdain as is your right.

 

However, the suggestion that the lands of the State of Israel should be relinquished to Palestine is what I was specifically referring to.

 

Of course the current situation is a man-made "problem." It's also hugely emotive and complex, but I'm just saying, off the cuff comments like dissolve the State is best restricted to the over excited, a little bit pissed and naive ranting of the idealist with total disregard for reality and should be left in the SU bar after people have grown up and emerged into the stark reality of adulthood.

 

There's nothing in a statement like that which advances the argument for a "solution" and it has (IMO) the real potential to be interpreted as being distinctly racist in its nature. Disillusion of a State not a religion.

 

Interesting (again, only MO) that here we see another example of "if I don't like the other side of the argument I'll call it racist" then I'm going to use (perceived) racist comments to advance my own argument but you can't call me racist.

Edited November 15, 2016 by kevinjohnsonmbe

[matelot]

You talk about the vast numbers (8M people in the UK who were not born here) and appear to believe that there are massing hordes on the borders coming to join them. l.

 

Earlier on you were saying there would be "issues" if there millions of migrants in the UK. You now think 8 millions migrants are OK. You're hardly consistent.....

 

I believe there were 10,000 migrants at Calais wanting to get to the UK. There are also millions of people in Libya etc wanting to get to Europe. I would consider that "massing hordes at the borders".

 

Where are the UK terrorist suspects coming from then?

Of the 280 people arrested on terrorism offences in 2015, 78% were British or dual nationality

 

So far as I can see, it seems to be radicalisation, mainly of second and third generation British muslims. It is a very small proportion of the total muslim community and is roundly condemned by the majority, but it would still be a good idea to understand the drivers and how to stop it. Since they are British citizens by birth, there isn't much else we can do about it.

 

So Muslims that have been born and raised in the UK plan to attack the UK and that's OK? Does that not show that they are not integrating? Surely the sensible thing to do would be to stop Muslim immigration?

 

How do you know what the Muslim community think of terrorism? Have you ever seen Muslims protest against the terrorists after an attack? My brother had a job that involved going to a lot of takeaways, after 9/11 he said a lot of them had posters of Osama Bin Laden in the back rooms. Does that sound like they were condemning killing 3,000 yanks?

 

If Muslims condemn terrorism so much how come places like Afghanistan/ Somalia/ Iraq/ Pakistan/ Nigeria etc are such violent places? How come minority groups in places like Egypt are persecuted? Surely the "vast majority" of peaceful Muslims could control the "small proportion" of extremists?

[matelot]

Another is calling a spade a spade

 

Is "spade" not a derogatory term for an African American? I hope you weren't being racist?

[matelot]

I think we can all agree that we should just give Israel back to the Palestinians.

 

No, I think Israel is a democratic beacon in the Middle East. How can the Jews build a modern democratic wealthy country (when surrounded by people that constantly attack them) when so many other countries are cess pits (despite billions in aid)?

 

It's almost if Jewish culture is better than say African culture?

[Luckyeleven]

Is "spade" not a derogatory term for an African American? I hope you weren't being racist?

 

Ah, now that I dont know, call me naive perhaps- but I know it only as a digging implement. Perhaps such things are more in your area specialist of 'interest?'

[TimberCutterDartmoor]

 

I like your use of the term "State of Israel". Using it like it should actually exist!

 

Israel exists because of the misplaced religious concept that an ethnic group of people have a 2000 year old claim on a crappy bit of middle eastern desert. Given that religion is nonsense, and any religion that requires you to amputate bits of your willy doubly so, I think we can all agree that we should just give Israel back to the Palestinians.

 

Vilest post on any forum anywhere.

 

Oh my goodness that makes me sick.

 

:thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown:

[Big J]

Discrimination on the basis of religion would be proscribed as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.

 

No issue with that part of the post as you say - you treat them all with equal disdain as is your right.

 

However, the suggestion that the lands of the State of Israel should be relinquished to Palestine is what I was specifically referring to.

 

Of course the current situation is a man-made "problem." It's also hugely emotive and complex, but I'm just saying, off the cuff comments like dissolve the State is best restricted to the over excited, a little bit pissed and naive ranting of the idealist with total disregard for reality and should be left in the SU bar after people have grown up and emerged into the stark reality of adulthood.

 

There's nothing in a statement like that which advances the argument for a "solution" and it has (IMO) the real potential to be interpreted as being distinctly racist in its nature. Disillusion of a State not a religion.

 

Interesting (again, only MO) that here we see another example of "if I don't like the other side of the argument I'll call it racist" then I'm going to use (perceived) racist comments to advance my own argument but you can't call me racist.

 

Eloquently put, and I hope that you can see that my simplistic remark relating to the dissolution of Israel was made with my tongue firmly in my cheek. The solution is a complicated one, but I do believe that no solution will ever be reached until Israel stops breaking international law and perhaps even if it is accepted that whilst Israel does exist, it's creation would never have occurred in the 21st century.

 

Regarding religion, I have no issue with continually highlighting the fact that it is nonsense. Like the belief in the world being flat, it is an antiquated and scientifically baseless belief that dearly hope I'll see the decline of in my lifetime.

[Vespasian]

Vilest post on any forum anywhere.

 

Oh my goodness that makes me sick.

 

:thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown:

 

Are you kidding, its just a rant....

 

Not to mention he has a point, not one shared by me mind.....

 

For what its worth, most Jews are European in origin.. that is to say they have zero ethnic claims to anywhere in the middle east...

 

So, apart from a claim based on their religious upbringing they aught not have even contemplated a claim on Israel...

 

Still it is what it is, whats been done can't be undone, best to move the argument forward....

[TIMON]

 

 

 

I like your use of the term "State of Israel". Using it like it should actually exist!

 

 

 

Israel exists because of the misplaced religious concept that an ethnic group of people have a 2000 year old claim on a crappy bit of middle eastern desert. Given that religion is nonsense, and any religion that requires you to amputate bits of your willy doubly so, I think we can all agree that we should just give Israel back to the Palestinians.

 

 

Possibly one of the most arrogant and naive posts I've ever read on Arbtalk

[10 Bears]

30,000 scientists, 10,000 of which hold phds, have signed a statement that ACC is a hoax. How's that for "consensus"? But like any religion, there will still be faithful believers long after history has proven it a load of tosh. Such is human nature, lord bless 'em.

 

Just reading through the back messages of this thread and came across this quote which struck me as interesting, so I did a little wider reading.

 

Essentially, the following article highlights the flaws in what is known as the Oregon petition, and broadly states that it is a useless measure:

 

30,000 Scientists Reject Anthropogenic Climate Change? : snopes.com

 

But in the interests of comparison, I thought about the counter claim that '97% of all scientists agree that there is ACC' that was mentioned earlier in this thread, and came across this article that identifies where the original 97% claim(s) came from:

 

Climate Change: No, It?s Not a 97 Percent Consensus | National Review

 

Interestingly, the source seems to be a Masters degree student project.

 

Now, both of these are media articles and of course the sources should be subject to further scrutiny, but I feel that there is a large degree of negative reporting on both sides, ie that folk only state the 'truth' as they see it (and as long as it fits with their argument!).