Originally posted by @areloa-grandee
Originally posted by @Barry-Sanchez
I do believe I said it was “cultural” above and we shouldn’t shy away from tackling that, whether it be a Presbytarian from Tyrone, Catholic from Armagh or an Arab from Bolton their faith makes no difference before the eyes of the law.
Do you deny people carry out agendas as its Gods will?
We shouid challenge racism, homophobia and sexism and bollocks to sensitivites.
Yes, sadly there are those who know no better - they have been indoctrinated with a religious zeal from birth and follow dogma without question. And of course we should should challenge racism, homophobia, sexism and any prejudices and bigotry where ever we see it… however, you simply can not say ‘bollocks to sensitivities’. There is a very good eason why you cant…
As I said previously, if you want to have an impact when challenging someones religious beliefs, first you need trust,you also need respect, because without those you cant even get them to sit at the same table. You also need education, to be able to offer a rational disection of their beliefes without simply saying its shit and ignorant (no matter how true that may be) - because their beliefs are built on ingrained historical teachings - considered academic study etc.
It is approaching these debates with a LACK of sensitivity that is the problem, because it has the exact opposite effect of what you are trying to achieve… it creates tension, mistrust, divisions ‘you can not understand, you infidel…’ etc - (which is exactly why integration becomes more difficult) so no progress is made and those whose beliefs preach intolerance and prejudice never learn any better.
Its also why those on the RIGHT, are more than happy to use ‘PC gone mad’ bullshit when criticising the need for sensitivities… when the simple fact is that its being sensitive and aware why folks believe in outdated dogma that are fundementally necessary to begin the process of education.
Knowing WHAT someone believs is not enough, you need to appreciate WHY they believe what they do to develop an approach to HOW to help evolve their attitudes.
Because of mass poverty, illiteracy and Countries supposed democracy’s being run by religion, we all know that, if you’re poor, sick etc etc you have to know for comfort something is better than this shite and God provides that, with education and resources you can see through that bollocks.
The evolution of attitudes will happen when people look through their own eyes and not a supposed God and a shite book, we did it in effect 500 years ago and we still have huge issues with stonethrowers, I’ll never be sensitive to other apolgists attitude to racism, sexism and homophibia, I suppose there are those on here would have excused Alf Garnett as he was old etc etc like our possibly grandads possibly were?
Originally posted by @Barry-Sanchez
Because of mass poverty, illiteracy and Cuntries supposed democracy’s being run by religion, we all know that, if you’re poor, sick etc etc you have to know for comfort something is better than this shite and God provides that, with education and resources you can see through that bollocks.
I mean, you couldn’t make this up. Could you?
Once again, Bronze Age Barry Bigot still has no idea how anything in the world actually works.
Bit early to be drinking, Barry.
I’ll change that ha ha!
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/02/12/british-muslims-facts_n_6670234.html
Do you guys disagree with these?
Found this quite interesting:
A detailed infographic reveals the research from The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), which found serious deprivation for Muslims in Britain, but also that three quarters call themselves “British” rather than “British Muslim”.
…
The MCB study showed that 73% of UK Muslims used only the word ‘British’ to define their national identity, rather than entering a more complex answer such as “British Muslim” or “British Iraqi”.
But they definitely don’t assimilate or integrate.
Otherwise, I don’t really see the point you are attempting to make. Other than a fresh bash at Muslims/Religion, and trying to equate this to hardship.
So you are taking a self survey over the humanist? You do do this magazine and site I understand? Oh dear oh dear, help the lad Pap or someone, if you think the humanist would be biased on this I suggest you need to actually read it.
Originally posted by @Barry-Sanchez
So you are taking a self survey over the humanist? You do do this magazine and site I understand? Oh dear oh dear, help the lad Pap or someone, if you think the humanist would be biased on this I suggest you need to actually read it.
I have less than no idea what you are talking about here.
I’ll try again. What point exactly are you trying to make by posting these articles? I beg you, just answer the question. No rambles, no buzzwords, please. Then we can go from there.
A point illustrated by a left leaning very well repsected journal more than answers that question my boy. It emphasises and strengthens my point obviously, whilst you took a self survey by the Muslim coucil for verification of your argument, if you don’t see the holes in that than you need to work on your debating skills.
Originally posted by @Barry-Sanchez
A point illustrated by a left leaning very well repsected journal more than answers that question my boy. It emphasises and strengthens my point obviously, whilst you look a self survey my the Muslim coucil for verification of your argument, if you don’t see the holes in that than you need to work on your debating skills.
Still no mention of what your actual point is, why are you deflecting?
I’m not even trying to debate you here, I’m asking what exactly the point you are trying to make is. But as always, you are defelcting. And discounting statistical evidence, in favour of opinions.
But it is funny you mention debating skills. I assure you, if you were ever to have an actual ‘debate’ you would get your arse handed to you. For one, there would be a moderator (we went over this before and you spat your dummy out about moderation nonsense). So you would be able to defelct or go off on your tangents. You also would get no where, as your ‘debate’ skills simply revolve around repeating a point over & over & over. you wouldn’t be able to do that in a debate. Shifting goalposts, again you’d get pulled on this in an instant, spouting meaningless buzzwords and calling people names. Again, all of which would not fly.
I’d suggest sir first looks in the mirror.
You haven’t ask a question so I can’t answer, your bias in going to the Muslim council for guidance on our discussion is skewed and is not valid, no I don’t think my arse would be shown to me.
Ask a question and I’ll answer it, you’ll find I do always and calling people names, Jesus wept lad I’m not the one making baseless accusations, you act like a fascist so i’ll call you one, I haven’t ever acted like one and if you make accusation than back it up with evidence, I’m doing so by the fact you’re making blind accusationswith no prrof and that is exaclty what the fascists did. You may be left leaning but that doesn’t shield you from being a fascist at all and you act like it.
I’ve asked multiple times Barry:
_What point are you trying to make with posting those articles? _
I am at a loss at how to make that clearer.
Also, the part about my bias? That is a quote straight from the article you posted.
And again, as always. Falling back on names and labels.
I did answer that, it strengthens my point or furthers it, you put it some self survey by the Muslim council, go you with those debating skills. Answer some questions to yourself before asking me
“Why do people copy and paste links?”
Originally posted by @Barry-Sanchez
I did answer that, it strengthens my point or furthers it, you put it some self survey by the Muslim council, go you with those debating skills. Answer some questions to yourself before asking me
“Why do people copy and paste links?”
No, you haven’t answered.
“It strengthens my point or furthers it”
This is not an answer to what point are you making.
Again, I have no idea what you are attempting to get at with that middle bit. I literally copied & pasted a part from that article you posted that I thought was quite interesting. It also goes somewhat against your ‘agenda’.
As for the final part. Well, probably for a variety of reasons. Depending on the discussion or the contents of the link. I don’t think there is a one size fits all answer to that.
How do you know it doesn’t answer it? It is your opinion not mine nor others, hence a debate.
I think KRG might be saying it’s a bit shit to just post links, not stating your own opinion, if it agrees/disagrees with the information contained within the link, the context of the links against the discussion and why are you such a knob.
I am paraphrasing but I think that is the gist of it.
I think I have and I did Bearsy ie the correlation between poverty and religion, do you disagree?
I still don’t think KRG is quite getting it tho B. Have you got any more links you could post?
The lad is away with the fairies Bearsy I tell thee.
Sorry Barry, for the sake of my own sanity I rarely read your posts so I can’t comment. Are you saying poor people are more inclined to be religious? If so, yeah probably. Loads of poor people do believe that shizzle but not just them, the super-rich and toffs do as well. Look at the royals, they are all over it as is Blair. Jewish people are famously pretty good with money as well. In Barry style here is a link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Ranking_by_Religious_Group_-_2000.png
By the way, I am not Bearsy, we are very different. He is far nicer and funnier than me. I am far angrier than him. I am darkside bearsy. It’s like ying and yang though and you can’t have the nice, friendly funny one without the mad, angry Scottish one. Pap knows this so has called upon me a couple of times to return to the forum as bear bait.
In many ways (and as far as you are concerned) I am forum Jesus, Barry. Saviour of the internet.
I can feel a new Avi coming on.