Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

You can't make this shit up

12346

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    You really are a bleeding heart softie aren't you?
    Why should we give money and aid to a nation that calls for the execution of one of our own citizens? Answer me that. And if this isn't why she's being released now, please enlighten me as to the real reason.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Why should we give money and aid to a nation that calls for the execution of one of our own citizens?
    Which nation called for the execution of anyone?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Why should we give money and aid to a nation that calls for the execution of one of our own citizens? Answer me that. And if this isn't why she's being released now, please enlighten me as to the real reason.

    It wasn't the state that called for her death.

    Also, I believe we should give as much help as possible to those in Darfur that have been suffering. Not everything is as black and white as you make it out to be.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Which nation called for the execution of anyone?
    The Sudanese protesters called for Gillian Gibbons to be executed. I would suggest the state of Sudan was sympathetic to such calls. Why? Look at the protests last Friday. The police could have steppped in, but they did nothing. That suggests to me that the Sudanese government was perfectly content with such calls being made. As such, they should be punished accordingly.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    The Sudanese protesters called for Gillian Gibbons to be executed. I would suggest the state of Sudan was sympathetic to such calls. Why? Look at the protests last Friday. The police could have steppped in, but they did nothing. That suggests to me that the Sudanese government was perfectly content with such calls being made. As such, they should be punished accordingly.

    Yeh like the protestors in London who called for the deaths of Europeans and those who insult Islam, just like the British government supports those types too? :yeees:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    Yeh like the protestors in London who called for the deaths of Europeans and those who insult Islam, just like the British government supports those types too? :yeees:
    Well, the reaction of the Met Police to those protests was worse than pathetic. Those protesters who called for people to be killed should have been arrested and charged with inciting hatred. But our timid coppers were too scared to do anything of the sort. Instead, they just let the protest go on.

    I'm not entirely sure why you're comparing the two, however. And nobody has answered the question I asked - why should we give aid to Sudan, a country which has just jailed one of our citizens and allowed its citizens to call for her to be executed?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Population of Sudan = 39.3m

    People demanding she's executed = a few thousand

    Yep, that's the whole nation alirght.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Population of Sudan = 39.3m
    People demanding she's executed = a few thousand
    Yep, that's the whole nation alirght.
    That still ignores the central point. Sudan is a nation with a horrendous human rights record. You probably know that already. So, if the Sudanese government wanted to suppress calls for her to be executed or suppress any dissent about it, they would have no hesitation in doing so. The fact they didn't speaks volumes. These thousands were effectively speaking on behalf of a government.

    I wonder if you've ever called for Sudan's aid to be linked to improvements in human rights, incidentally. (i.e. poor human rights = less money and aid)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    I wonder if you've ever called for Sudan's aid to be linked to improvements in human rights, incidentally. (i.e. poor human rights = less money and aid)

    It'll probably be linked to the number of government contracts that get farmed out to British companies.

    Didn't realise you were against freedom of speech btw.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It'll probably be linked to the number of government contracts that get farmed out to British companies.
    Ah yes. In a very similar way to what happens with Saudi Arabia. But we know that the UK only condemns human rights violations in countries where it doesn't have any interest. And also, there's no oil in Sudan, is there?
    Didn't realise you were against freedom of speech btw.
    You must be off your trolley if you think I'm going to support someone's "right" to call for someone else to be killed in the name of freedom of speech.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    You must be off your trolley if you think I'm going to support someone's "right" to call for someone else to be killed in the name of freedom of speech.

    So we're agreed. You're against freedom of speech. ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So we're agreed. You're against freedom of speech. ;)
    Don't be impertinent. I'm not going to listen to some nutters saying "behead that woman" before replying "yep, I'm fine with that. I respect your "right" to want to have the woman killed". No way in hell am I doing that!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Don't be impertinent. I'm not going to listen to some nutters saying "behead that woman" before replying "yep, I'm fine with that. I respect your "right" to want to have the woman killed". No way in hell am I doing that!

    Exactly, I'm not disagreeing with you. You don't believe in people's right to believe and say whatever they want to believe and say. I do.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Exactly, I'm not disagreeing with you. You don't believe in people's right to believe and say whatever they want to believe and say. I do.
    So, if I called now for you to be executed, you'd have no problem with it?

    Hmm... :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    That still ignores the central point. Sudan is a nation with a horrendous human rights record. You probably know that already. So, if the Sudanese government wanted to suppress calls for her to be executed or suppress any dissent about it, they would have no hesitation in doing so. The fact they didn't speaks volumes. These thousands were effectively speaking on behalf of a government.

    I wonder if you've ever called for Sudan's aid to be linked to improvements in human rights, incidentally. (i.e. poor human rights = less money and aid)
    So what you're saying in effect is that it's bad enough if we put up with thousands of murders and rapes of Sudanese people, but if 1 British citizen is harrassed and threatened then that's going completely over the line and the aid must be cut off immediately.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    So what you're saying in effect is that it's bad enough if we put up with thousands of murders and rapes of Sudanese people, but if 1 British citizen is harrassed and threatened then that's going completely over the line and the aid must be cut off immediately.
    I don't dispute there are many murders and rapes happening in Sudan. So, you'll still give them aid DESPITE appalling human rights abuses? I'm surprised you're not calling for the withdrawal of aid.

    I ask yet again, not just of Aladdin, but of everyone - why does Sudan deserve a single penny more in British aid?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I would say that either it does or doesn't. But the harrassment of 1 British citizen by a crowd of idiots does not warrant cutting off the aid. Had the State executed her it might be a different story.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I would say that either it does or doesn't.
    Are you being deliberately vague?
    But the harrassment of 1 British citizen by a crowd of idiots does not warrant cutting off the aid. Had the State executed her it might be a different story.
    Undoubtedly so. But I suspect threats were made behind the scenes. Why else would Sudan have released her now?

    And notice the protests in Sudan afterwards. What bets that those protests were also endorsed by the government?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    I hope that wasn't aimed at me....:confused:

    Nope
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Like spirituality, the argument for the benefits of the things that surround religion aren't an argument for the positive effects of religious beliefs themselves (not that positive effects are any measurement on their validity of course). My grandma used to go to church on Sunday, and a group that wasn't church-based on a Thursday to meet up with friends. They both essentially served the same function. Cup of tea and a chat with friends. I imagine the Ku Klux Clan or the Church of Scientology offer quite a nice support network too. But then so might your local community group or book discussion group.
    Well tbh, as somebody who grew up with a community based around a church, I have to disagree from experience. Religion can be used to bind people and bring them together. Where else do you find such supportive communities these days?

    However, I believe there are a number of bad things that would never happen without religion. I believe that people are inherantly good.
    You know what? That would be a lovely dream world to live in, but not a realistic world at all. People will always, for whatever reason find excuses to exercise prejudice. You only need a basic knowledge of history to understand issues which have gone on that were not linked to religion at all.

    People will form group identities, claim territories, find fault with each other. Cultures would clash. People would be fighting just as much for reasons other than religion if religion were not to exist. Don't get me wrong, there are some appalling parts to religious texts which as quite happily exploited by elites, but if not religion, then something else will.

    And as such, I also believe that the vast majority of people who give money to charity because their religion commands it, would probably do so anyway, because it feels good and they're good people. However, I doubt that the same people would support the discrimination of homosexuals, bombing of abortion clinics, banning of stem cell research, or lies about contraception in Africa, without having their morals "guided" by religion.
    You mean people who give money to charity would support that? That's a bit of a generalisation.

    :confused:
    They may do of course, but I think that religious beliefs can create moral "guides" that wouldn't necessarily be there without it (especially stem cell research - never heard a non-religious argument against this) and more often than not, these tend to be the negative ones. That's just my opinion though, I have no way of backing it up. But the other alternative is that whether or not religion exists, people will do good and bad things. So at worst, we're left with the question, what is the point of religion. At the very least, the upkeep of the organisations themselves are a waste of money that would be less likely to occur in a secular charity.
    To be honest, I think there would be far less charities around if it weren't for people finding inspiration in religion. Also note how politically active the Quakers have been and how involved with communities and building they've been.

    And I agree with the latter argument. There's ore research to suggest it.
    I dunno about that. There are plenty of things that people try to get banned because they're "blasphemous" or "promote sin." There are plenty of people who believe that certain things will lead people from the "righteous path" in the same way that witchcraft did.
    There are several arguments for the witchcraft debate. Society can demonise any group it wants. Just look at Falun Gong in China (sorry to keep returning to China lol). Propaganda, be it religious or secular can cause great harm. If the elite see a challenge, they'll stamp all over it without mercy given the right conditions.
    Yep, but only one group gets any sort of popular support, and that's the one who's "right to practice religion" is being infringed upon. Same with the adoption agencies.
    Sorry... But who gave Catholic adoption agencies more support than gay potential parents?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Are you being deliberately vague? Undoubtedly so. But I suspect threats were made behind the scenes. Why else would Sudan have released her now?
    Aid should be link to compliance of UN resolutions on human rights. There is certainly a good case for witholding aid until the Sudanese government makes a clear effort to stop the violence in the Darfur region. To be honest I don't enough about it to say a definite yes.

    However if we are to withdraw support it should be because of that, not because a single UK citizen has been treated unfairly.
    And notice the protests in Sudan afterwards. What bets that those protests were also endorsed by the government?
    I doubt it to be honest.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    So, if I called now for you to be executed, you'd have no problem with it?

    Hmm... :p

    I wouldn't give a shit. Why would anyone listen to you, let alone actually carry it out? I'm of the opinion that adults are old enough that they don't need shielding from certain views like you would a child.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    Well tbh, as somebody who grew up with a community based around a church, I have to disagree from experience. Religion can be used to bind people and bring them together. Where else do you find such supportive communities these days?
    But that's the point. Just because religious communities do such things, does make it a positive point of religion. Is religion necessary for it to happen? No. Therefore it's not an argument for religious faith being a positive thing. And I gave a couple of examples of positive communities that people belong to. But just a few more: Political parties, activity clubs, youth clubs, sports teams, theatre groups. The judo club that my parents are members of has just as much of a community feel as the Catholic church I grew up in.
    Namaste wrote: »
    You know what? That would be a lovely dream world to live in, but not a realistic world at all. People will always, for whatever reason find excuses to exercise prejudice. You only need a basic knowledge of history to understand issues which have gone on that were not linked to religion at all.
    But were they linked to faith in anything at all? Be it a political idea, a concept of race or whatever other unproven bullshit you might want to mention? I suspect so. Having faith in conservatism, for example, is just as dangerous as having faith in religion. Having faith in anything closes you to criticism of it, and the ability to think critically about a situation, which is the most vital thing if we are going to progress as a race.
    Namaste wrote: »
    People will form group identities, claim territories, find fault with each other. Cultures would clash. People would be fighting just as much for reasons other than religion if religion were not to exist. Don't get me wrong, there are some appalling parts to religious texts which as quite happily exploited by elites, but if not religion, then something else will.
    Yep, but religion is a pretty good facilitator for it, especially when it comes to indoctronating children. It's much harder to indoctronate your children into your political beliefs, when the discussion is free, open, and not included in the school syllabus (I know that most kids vote roughly the same as their parents, but then most kids also end up living in roughly the same financial situation as their parents, which means they'll likely be voting for the party they feel most benefits their situation).
    Namaste wrote: »
    You mean people who give money to charity would support that? That's a bit of a generalisation.

    :confused:
    Haha, no. I'm just saying that it's only with faith that you end up with a fair number of people with such conflicting viewpoints as giving money to combat aids, but not wanting contraception to be mentioned as part of the solution, for example. It leads to inconsitancies in morality, and an idea of morality that is in no way linked to real world suffering (if you think that hell exists, the you'd do anything to avoid your kids going there, even if it meant causing them immense suffering in this life, for example).
    Namaste wrote: »
    To be honest, I think there would be far less charities around if it weren't for people finding inspiration in religion. Also note how politically active the Quakers have been and how involved with communities and building they've been.

    And I agree with the latter argument. There's ore research to suggest it.
    Sorry, but I think that's quite a typical argument. People point to charities formed or achievements made before or in the early 1900's, and say, "look at what religious society and religious morality have done for us." But the fact is that you can't point to a period when almost everyone claimed to be religious (and those who weren't were either killed or socially outcast), and then say that any achievements in that period were a result of religious thinking. But a further argument. If your argument so far has been that people will do good and bad things whether religion is involved or not, then how can you cite religion as "inspiration" for these acts? You can't say that it's inspiration for the good acts, but the bad acts are just human nature. I know my argument sounds similar but opposite, but what I'm arguing is that it creates inconsistancies in moral judgement that would otherwise not occur (e.g. no-one would be against stem cell research if they didn't believe in the teaching that human life is holy/sacred).
    Namaste wrote: »
    There are several arguments for the witchcraft debate. Society can demonise any group it wants. Just look at Falun Gong in China (sorry to keep returning to China lol). Propaganda, be it religious or secular can cause great harm. If the elite see a challenge, they'll stamp all over it without mercy given the right conditions.
    Again, you're pointing to a secular government despite the fact that I've already argued the point that it's not a religion vs. secular thing, it's a rationality vs. irrationality thing.
    Namaste wrote: »
    Sorry... But who gave Catholic adoption agencies more support than gay potential parents?
    Plenty of people said that we shouldn't force people to do something which is "against their religious beliefs," effectively supporting their right to discriminate based purely on their religious beliefs. This was the argument of quite a few people in the media, not the "their hotel, their rules" argument (though that one was also common).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Aid should be link to compliance of UN resolutions on human rights. There is certainly a good case for witholding aid until the Sudanese government makes a clear effort to stop the violence in the Darfur region. To be honest I don't enough about it to say a definite yes.

    However if we are to withdraw support it should be because of that, not because a single UK citizen has been treated unfairly. I doubt it to be honest.
    At last, you admit it. You think aid should be linked to compliance with international law. Finally! There must be a god. (though I'm With Stupid our very own version of Richard Dawkins, would foam at the mouth in disgust at such a suggestion, such is his hatred for religion)

    I'd be more than happy to see aid withdrawal linked to that myself. It should have happened a long time ago, but our craven, useless then-PM Tony Blair was too gutless to do it. I wonder if Mr Bean is prepared to do it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    At last, you admit it. You think aid should be linked to compliance with international law. Finally! There must be a god. (though I'm With Stupid our very own version of Richard Dawkins, would foam at the mouth in disgust at such a suggestion, such is his hatred for religion)

    I'd be more than happy to see aid withdrawal linked to that myself. It should have happened a long time ago, but our craven, useless then-PM Tony Blair was too gutless to do it. I wonder if Mr Bean is prepared to do it.
    So why on earth do you demand that the aid is withdrawn because of the English teacher? Is the harassment of 1 British subject worth more than the rapes and murders of tens of thousands of Sudanese?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    So why on earth do you demand that the aid is withdrawn because of the English teacher? Is the harassment of 1 British subject worth more than the rapes and murders of tens of thousands of Sudanese?
    Don't be disingenious, I suggested no such thing. All you've done is simply give me another reason why Sudan does not deserve a single penny in British money or aid.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh yeah?
    stargalaxy wrote:
    Why should we give money and aid to a nation that calls for the execution of one of our own citizens? Answer me that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Oh yeah?
    And you've given me a second reason why Sudan doesn't deserve another penny - its appalling human rights record. We seem to be in agreement here, so stop trying to create arguments for the hell of it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    From your original comments I could only reach the conclusion you wished for the aid to be cut off because a British subject was unfairly treated and there were a few thousand people chanting for her death. I suspect I am not alone in having read your comments that way.

    In any case even if you think this was just the final straw it should not be the deciding factor. If aid deserves cutting is because of the human right abuses against the people in Darfur. And if the aid is still in place I don't think it's right to demand it is cut off because of this incident. It wouldn't send a very nice message for starters...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    And if the aid is still in place I don't think it's right to demand it is cut off because of this incident. It wouldn't send a very nice message for starters...
    Why?
Sign In or Register to comment.