Crosswords6 mins ago
“France Is Being Islamised And Africanised”
129 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
andy hughes //// This religion still lives in the dark ages and has no place in a civilised world //
Frankly, that sentiment applies to all religions!!
What is uncivilised about the major world religions practised by combined billions of people; Buddhism (Zen, Mahayana and Theravada) Christianity, Taoism, Hinduism, & Sikhism ?
What is it you know that they don't?
Do you in fact, know anything about these religions, or is this assertion a demonstration of your prejudice?
Frankly, that sentiment applies to all religions!!
What is uncivilised about the major world religions practised by combined billions of people; Buddhism (Zen, Mahayana and Theravada) Christianity, Taoism, Hinduism, & Sikhism ?
What is it you know that they don't?
Do you in fact, know anything about these religions, or is this assertion a demonstration of your prejudice?
Khandro - // What is uncivilised about the major world religions practised by combined billions of people; Buddhism (Zen, Mahayana and Theravada) Christianity, Taoism, Hinduism, & Sikhism ?
What is it you know that they don't?
Do you in fact, know anything about these religions, or is this assertion a demonstration of your prejudice? //
It all comes down to the individual's concept of what is 'civilised'.
I don't think believing in a divine being without evidence is civilised, so my point stops right there - nothing to do with prejudice at all.
I am largely indifferent to religion, except when people twist it to justify harming others.
What is it you know that they don't?
Do you in fact, know anything about these religions, or is this assertion a demonstration of your prejudice? //
It all comes down to the individual's concept of what is 'civilised'.
I don't think believing in a divine being without evidence is civilised, so my point stops right there - nothing to do with prejudice at all.
I am largely indifferent to religion, except when people twist it to justify harming others.
sanmac - // Muslims don't have to twist their religion to justify harming others. //
Every single faith throughout history that has used the notion of that faith to hurt other people has done so by corrupting its faith's original message - including Christianity.
Islam is not exempt, but neither is it alone.
Every single faith throughout history that has used the notion of that faith to hurt other people has done so by corrupting its faith's original message - including Christianity.
Islam is not exempt, but neither is it alone.
retrocop - // I think I best hold my tongue here but the contradiction just stinks of hypocrisy. Just saying. //
Clearly you are not 'just saying' at all.
If you have an issue with a post, why not argue your point, instead of saying that you have to hold your tongue?
I can debate and defend my views - can't you?
Clearly you are not 'just saying' at all.
If you have an issue with a post, why not argue your point, instead of saying that you have to hold your tongue?
I can debate and defend my views - can't you?
You can't debate though can you?.You refused to answer a simple question I posed to you earlier on account you found it offensive.No offence was intended towards you but you were so embarrassed and side stepped the issue. If you wish to find offence where there is none then I can see myself on the naughty step for a perceived personal attack. That I wish to avoid as I respect the privilege afforded to me. Trying to have an open and honest debate with you is not worth my suspension again.
andy-hughes, Retrocop asked you a question to which you replied //I am not going to dignify that question with a response. //
... and now you ask why he doesn't argue his point and say you can debate and defend your views? Pretty difficult to argue a point with someone who refuses to respond to questions.
... and now you ask why he doesn't argue his point and say you can debate and defend your views? Pretty difficult to argue a point with someone who refuses to respond to questions.
retrocop - // You refused to answer a simple question I posed to you earlier on account you found it offensive.No offence was intended towards you but you were so embarrassed and side stepped the issue. If you wish to find offence where there is none then I can see myself on the naughty step for a perceived personal attack. That I wish to avoid as I respect the privilege afforded to me. Trying to have an open and honest debate with you is not worth my suspension again. //
Your insecurity is ill-founded - people are suspended for breaking Site Rules, not for exchanges of views.
If it matters that much to you that you have your question answered, then I am willing to answer it - no I do not condone the multination of children in the name of religion.
My offence stems for the fact that you would consider for one moment that I would think such actions are defensible - what sort of person would that make me?
If you see me as someone who would defend that - and clearly you do, otherwise you would not have asked and repeated your question - then yes, I am absolutely offended by your position.
Question answered - let's move on.
Your insecurity is ill-founded - people are suspended for breaking Site Rules, not for exchanges of views.
If it matters that much to you that you have your question answered, then I am willing to answer it - no I do not condone the multination of children in the name of religion.
My offence stems for the fact that you would consider for one moment that I would think such actions are defensible - what sort of person would that make me?
If you see me as someone who would defend that - and clearly you do, otherwise you would not have asked and repeated your question - then yes, I am absolutely offended by your position.
Question answered - let's move on.
//no I do not condone the multination of children in the name of religion. //
So simple.That could of been answered at the onset then you would not have perceived your imaginary offence.
I am not arguing with you about Site Rules but I recall that suspension well and no rules were broken.That is why I have such distrust and will not enter, gladly, debates with those who hold the whip hand.That is my position and I have nothing more to say on this thread. Thank you for a long awaited answer to a simple question
So simple.That could of been answered at the onset then you would not have perceived your imaginary offence.
I am not arguing with you about Site Rules but I recall that suspension well and no rules were broken.That is why I have such distrust and will not enter, gladly, debates with those who hold the whip hand.That is my position and I have nothing more to say on this thread. Thank you for a long awaited answer to a simple question
Forgot to add this before the send button was pressed
//If it matters that much to you that you have your question answered, then I am willing to answer it - no I do not condone the multination of children in the name of religion. //
Of course it matters to me otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to ask it in the first place. No answers to questions. No debate. simples
//If it matters that much to you that you have your question answered, then I am willing to answer it - no I do not condone the multination of children in the name of religion. //
Of course it matters to me otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to ask it in the first place. No answers to questions. No debate. simples
retrocop - // /no I do not condone the multination of children in the name of religion. //
So simple.That could of been answered at the onset then you would not have perceived your imaginary offence. //
First of all, let me assure you that my offence was not remotely imaginary, and believe me, offending me is really quite hard to do!
If you cannot see that finding the need to ask someone if they think mutilating babies is acceptable is offensive, then clearly we have different views on what we can simply take for granted on the basis that we are thinking, compassionate human beings. I would never ask you such a question - just assume that you don't think mutilating babies is acceptable - how on earth could you?
// I am not arguing with you about Site Rules but I recall that suspension well and no rules were broken.That is why I have such distrust and will not enter, gladly, debates with those who hold the whip hand.That is my position and I have nothing more to say on this thread. //
Obviously suspensions are not for discussion.
I am disappointed that you feel you cannot debate with the freedom afforded to everyone else because you appear to believe that I would use my status as a Moderator against you.
I have been a Moderator as long as they have been in existence, I take my duties very seriously, and I would never abuse them, certainly not in the pursuit of some petty personal animosity, which I do not hold. Would I, or any other Moderator to act improperly in that manner, our positions would not remain intact for very long, I am sure you can see that.
Hopefully we can move on, and you will feel free to state your views as you wish - your only constriction is the Site Rules, which apply to everyone, Moderators included.
// Thank you for a long awaited answer to a simple question. //
You are welcome.
So simple.That could of been answered at the onset then you would not have perceived your imaginary offence. //
First of all, let me assure you that my offence was not remotely imaginary, and believe me, offending me is really quite hard to do!
If you cannot see that finding the need to ask someone if they think mutilating babies is acceptable is offensive, then clearly we have different views on what we can simply take for granted on the basis that we are thinking, compassionate human beings. I would never ask you such a question - just assume that you don't think mutilating babies is acceptable - how on earth could you?
// I am not arguing with you about Site Rules but I recall that suspension well and no rules were broken.That is why I have such distrust and will not enter, gladly, debates with those who hold the whip hand.That is my position and I have nothing more to say on this thread. //
Obviously suspensions are not for discussion.
I am disappointed that you feel you cannot debate with the freedom afforded to everyone else because you appear to believe that I would use my status as a Moderator against you.
I have been a Moderator as long as they have been in existence, I take my duties very seriously, and I would never abuse them, certainly not in the pursuit of some petty personal animosity, which I do not hold. Would I, or any other Moderator to act improperly in that manner, our positions would not remain intact for very long, I am sure you can see that.
Hopefully we can move on, and you will feel free to state your views as you wish - your only constriction is the Site Rules, which apply to everyone, Moderators included.
// Thank you for a long awaited answer to a simple question. //
You are welcome.
A.H. //I don't think believing in a divine being without evidence is civilised, so my point stops right there - nothing to do with prejudice at all. //
Have you ever seen, or even heard of, Sir Kenneth Clark's "Civilisation" ? He demonstrates how European civilisation is predicated on Christianity (though he famously begins by saying he doesn't know what civilisation is). Your existence would be entirely different from what it is today without it. You should also read Douglas Murray's new world best selling book, 'The Strange Death of Europe', which clearly shows how your attitude of indifference will destroy something of enormous value. Here's part 1 of Civilisation;
Have you ever seen, or even heard of, Sir Kenneth Clark's "Civilisation" ? He demonstrates how European civilisation is predicated on Christianity (though he famously begins by saying he doesn't know what civilisation is). Your existence would be entirely different from what it is today without it. You should also read Douglas Murray's new world best selling book, 'The Strange Death of Europe', which clearly shows how your attitude of indifference will destroy something of enormous value. Here's part 1 of Civilisation;
Khandro - // You should also read Douglas Murray's new world best selling book, 'The Strange Death of Europe', which clearly shows how your attitude of indifference will destroy something of enormous value. //
I'm immensely flattered, but I think you over-estimate my power to 'destroy anything of enormous value.
I'm immensely flattered, but I think you over-estimate my power to 'destroy anything of enormous value.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank7 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
ChatterBank21 mins ago
Is It Safe To Take Paracetamol
How it Works23 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.