DUP new leader

No one with such idiotic, backward, blinkered, sticking two fingers up at scientific evidence beliefs should be allowed within a mile of any public office. There is believing in God and then there is lunacy that should have been left behind with the worship of the Great green Arkleseizure.
 
catinstalbans said:
No one with such idiotic, backward, blinkered, sticking two fingers up at scientific evidence beliefs should be allowed within a mile of any public office. There is believing in God and then there is lunacy that should have been left behind with the worship of the Great green Arkleseizure.
Click to expand...
Not like you to have a go at Muslims. You're normally all over anyone with even a hint of islamaphobia..
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
In all seriousness though, do these types actually believe the earth is only 6000 years old?

'Do you ever notice how people who believe in Creationism usually look pretty unevolved. "I believe God created me in one day." Yeah, looks like he rushed it.'

Bill Hicks.
Click to expand...
Putting aside his view on blood donors of African origin or those in the gay community or his views on the role of women in society, he also thinks that Snakes can talk.
 
Crikey and the Muslim view on women. I missed that...you're probably left with a bloke fettling a snake at this point. Bit like me every Saturday morning
 
It is a strange and sad outcome that a thread about a deranged Christian sect becomes one attacking a completely different religion.
 
catinstalbans said:
It is a strange and sad outcome that a thread about a deranged Christian sect becomes one attacking a completely different religion.
Click to expand...
It's because he can't quite grasp the notion that some of us are as appalled by Muslim extremism/ fundamentalism as we are Christian fundamentalism. It's almost as though some think if we oppose one; we support the other. Rolls eyes
Talking of irony. The views of the right are more aligned to fundamentalist Islam than the centre/ left will ever be.
 
I look forward to your posts condemning the next mentalist atrocity then.
 
catinstalbans said:
It is a strange and sad outcome that a thread about a deranged Christian sect becomes one attacking a completely different religion.
Click to expand...
In fairness (and to add some balance) you have done exactly the same thing on posts about grooming gangs. So have I, by the way, but we can’t have it both ways.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Well that’s not really having it both ways is it...? That’s just accepting it as it is...

Although I’m not sure I’d class the everyday religious freak in that way. ‘Mentalist’ in the Alan Partridge sense of the word as opposed to the Funded variety, is probably more appropriate or plain old Nutter, perhaps.
Click to expand...
Don’t know what you’re on about...
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Me neither it seems that some ** is deleting/amending posts.
Click to expand...
Only on avftt could you get a post deleted for homophobia...especially when you were actually pointing out the hypocrisy of the left and challenging their views of certain religious against others and actually providing support against homophobia. It's a strange world for sure. Interesting article below about countries to avoid. I see Gaza and the West Bank is in there - 10 years just for being gay...

"20 Most Dangerous Places For Gay Travelers (And The 5 Safest)" https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurab...gerous-places-safest-lgbtq-gay-travelers/amp/
 
southshorepool said:
It's because he can't quite grasp the notion that some of us are as appalled by Muslim extremism/ fundamentalism as we are Christian fundamentalism. It's almost as though some think if we oppose one; we support the other. Rolls eyes
Talking of irony. The views of the right are more aligned to fundamentalist Islam than the centre/ left will ever be.
Click to expand...
This is what the internet has boiled down to these days, black or white.
 
Wizaard said:
As Lost Seasider would say, prove it.
Click to expand...
Wiz, next time one of the usual suspects commits a ridiculous atrocity I’ll let you know. I don’t have the time trawling through months and months of posts to show you a certain poster didn’t bother posting anything last time.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Click to expand...
That song really should have completely cured racism there and then 'right boys, what time are we lynching tonight?...wait Cleetus, I've just heard this song, I think we've been wrong all this time, on his piano keyboard for the love of God....'
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
That song really should have completely cured racism there and then 'right boys, what time are we lynching tonight?...wait Cleetus, I've just heard this song, I think we've been wrong all this time, on his piano keyboard for the love of God....'
Click to expand...

It’s shocking, how such moving lyrics failed to have the desired affect, but it goes to show just how entrenched the problem is.
 
Wizaard said:
Find a post where anyone has defended any atrocity.
Click to expand...
If a person judges another's viewpoint by what platitudes they write on a football messageboard we really are in the age of shite.
Personally, I've always preferred action to social media musings. If my years of working with prevent teams recognising and mentoring young people in danger of radicalisation are not as important as 'oooh isn't that bombing terrible?' on here then so be it.
 
I'd question the Islamic belief that Adam was made out of clay..like a really dangerous episode of Take Hart.
The idea that this particular person believes that Adam and Eve commited Original Sin because they were duped by a reptilian apple salesman in the Garden of Eden Wildlife and Petting Zoo has potential implications on his ability to be even handed with the electorate. If his personal religious beliefs, not shared by a majority of Christians in the West, has no impact on policy, then it's all good. Hopefully his views that those of African descent or homosexuals shouldn't be able to give blood or that women should stay at home or that there should be no legal basis for divorce or that women have no right to choose are things of the past and that he's mellowed somewhat.

Btw: I know that some of you are desperate to turn this into a debate about Christianity and Islam and wokeness/ BBC/ MSM but you can't do that logically. Christianity itself has 45000 different denominations. It's not a homogeneous entity.
 
southshorepool said:
I'd question the Islamic belief that Adam was made out of clay..like a really dangerous episode of Take Hart.
The idea that this particular person believes that Adam and Eve commited Original Sin because they were duped by a reptilian apple salesman in the Garden of Eden Wildlife and Petting Zoo has potential implications on his ability to be even handed with the electorate. If his personal religious beliefs, not shared by a majority of Christians in the West, has no impact on policy, then it's all good. Hopefully his views that those of African descent or homosexuals shouldn't be able to give blood or that women should stay at home or that there should be no legal basis for divorce or that women have no right to choose are things of the past and that he's mellowed somewhat.

Btw: I know that some of you are desperate to turn this into a debate about Christianity and Islam and wokeness/ BBC/ MSM but you can't do that logically. Christianity itself has 45000 different denominations. It's not a homogeneous entity.
Click to expand...
A women’s right to choose or the legalised murder of unborn children?

I’m yet to speak to a woman who doesn’t deeply regret a past termination.

BTW, I’m on the fence with this particular debate, but I do find it interesting that you feel you can categorise that kind of ‘opinion’ in the context that you have.... (almost a suggestion that there’s no room for debate and anyone who values life over choice is a nutter).
 
Last edited:
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
A women’s right to choose or the legalised murder of unborn children?

I’m yet to speak to a woman who doesn’t deeply regret a past termination.

BTW, I’m on the fence with this particular debate, but I do find it interesting that you feel you can categorise that kind of ‘opinion’ in the context note that you have.... (almost a suggestion that there’s no room for debate and anyone who values life over choice is a nutter).
Click to expand...
Not really. I never used the word nutter.
 
southshorepool said:
Not really. I never used the word nutter.
Click to expand...
No, but you did slip that particular issue in alongside a number of other issues that could ‘reasonably’ be considered to be ‘unreasonable’ or ‘extreme’. Plus you questioned the fitness of someone who held the opinions for public office.

Do you think it’s extreme or unreasonable to stand up for the rights of unborn human beings ?

I accept you may have an opinion either way, a lot of people do, but I’m not convinced the alternative opinion is totally invalid or unreasonable and it feels to me like the ‘odd one out’ in your grouping above.

I agree that Religion needs to be challenged by the way and in particular it needs to be challenged on its attitude towards women... Other issues such as genital mutilation (male & female), marriage practices, shunning (across all religions), abuse, attitude to sexuality and sex in general etc.. also need to be called out
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
No, but you did slip that particular issue in alongside a number of other issues that could ‘reasonably’ be considered to be ‘unreasonable’ or ‘extreme’. Plus you questioned the fitness of someone who held the opinions for public office.

Do you think it’s extreme or unreasonable to stand up for the rights of unborn human beings ?

I accept you may have an opinion either way, a lot of people do, but I’m not convinced the alternative opinion is totally invalid or unreasonable and it feels to me like the ‘odd one out’ in your grouping above.

I agree that Religion needs to be challenged by the way and in particular it needs to be challenged on its attitude towards women... Other issues such as genital mutilation (male & female), marriage practices, shunning (across all religions), abuse, attitude to sexuality and sex in general etc.. also need to be called out
Click to expand...
Your last paragraph is spot on imo.
 
southshorepool said:
Your last paragraph is spot on imo.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree with the bulk of what you say SSP, I just found it interesting regarding right to choose.

I find both sides of that debate quite compelling and equally valid. The right of the child vs right of the mother feels like something that ought to be balanced (for example). By contrast the views on race or homosexuality just feel plain wrong.

Of course that’s only my perspective 👍
 
Last edited:
While it is possible for a person to believe that abortion is wrong, it is hypocritical to say the least, to then support the extermination of a human life by supporting the death penalty for criminals as so many fundamentalist religious believers do.
As far as balance is concerned the law gets it about right in considering the point where a termination is legal.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I don’t disagree with the bulk of what you say SSP, I just found it interesting regarding right to choose.

I find both sides of that debate quite compelling and equally valid. The right of the child vs right of the mother feels like something that ought to be balanced (for example). By contrast the views on race or homosexuality just feel plain wrong.

Of course that’s only my perspective 👍
Click to expand...
I understand exactly where you are coming from, hence the lack of response.
 
catinstalbans said:
While it is possible for a person to believe that abortion is wrong, it is hypocritical to say the least, to then support the extermination of a human life by supporting the death penalty for criminals as so many fundamentalist religious believers do.
As far as balance is concerned the law gets it about right in considering the point where a termination is legal.
Click to expand...
I suspect you are right regarding the law. Though I do think the balance could easily swing on the issue depending on how society might choose to view morality at any particular time.... I could for example envisage a future where humanity might look back in absolute horror at the very idea of abortion for example... Morality is very much a moving feast in that regard.

I’m not going to argue that religious fundamentalists or even religious moderates don’t hold some pretty hypocritical and conflicting opinions. I mean the fact that Christianity is possibly one of the most Un-Christian things going highlights that.
 
catinstalbans said:
While it is possible for a person to believe that abortion is wrong, it is hypocritical to say the least, to then support the extermination of a human life by supporting the death penalty for criminals as so many fundamentalist religious believers do.
As far as balance is concerned the law gets it about right in considering the point where a termination is legal.
Click to expand...
As a further thought CATs, what do you think about the counter argument.

That is for someone to advocate against the death penalty for some of the most heinous crimes, yet support Termination?

Is that also hypocritical?
 
Not in the slightest. The difference is whether you believe that an embryo is a living human being. The reason why I think the law gets it about right is because it picks a time in foetal development when give or take a bit in terms of development, the foetus is capable of survival as an entity in itself. Otherwise you begin to have problems accepting the morality of IVF, as far more zygotes are produced than will ever be implanted, and subsequently a lot of stem cell research into treatments for disease becomes unacceptable. That's before you consider the millions of IVF babies leading normal lives and the families it effects.
I always stress when teaching this topic, that it is fine to hold a view how you would proceed in difficult circumstances but unacceptable to force your viewpoint on to others who may hold different opinions as to what is the right thing to do for them. And in blunt exam terms make sure you can give a valid reason for both arguments.
 
Hmmm... It’s a tough one for me this, I must admit. As you say, if you take it’s to its obvious conclusions, masturbation is murder, which is pretty much everyone on AVFTT fucked.
 
catinstalbans said:
Not in the slightest. The difference is whether you believe that an embryo is a living human being. The reason why I think the law gets it about right is because it picks a time in foetal development when give or take a bit in terms of development, the foetus is capable of survival as an entity in itself. Otherwise you begin to have problems accepting the morality of IVF, as far more zygotes are produced than will ever be implanted, and subsequently a lot of stem cell research into treatments for disease becomes unacceptable. That's before you consider the millions of IVF babies leading normal lives and the families it effects.
I always stress when teaching this topic, that it is fine to hold a view how you would proceed in difficult circumstances but unacceptable to force your viewpoint on to others who may hold different opinions as to what is the right thing to do for them. And in blunt exam terms make sure you can give a valid reason for both arguments.
Click to expand...
So far as abortion is concerned my starting point is that it’s wrong to kill an innocent human being, and I think most people would agree with that proposition.

The next question has to be the one you’ve touched on - at what point does a foetus become a human being?

I’ve read all the arguments and to be frank I think it’s difficult to argue with the position that it can’t be anything other than the point of conception. Obviously the fertilised egg is not a human as we’d recognise it to be, but it’s exactly what a human is meant to be at that point of its development.

The problem with the law, or any society, then determining that the foetus is something else prior to a specific date is that the decision is completely arbitrary. How can a developing foetus be a human being one day but something entirely different the day before? And I’ve heard all the arguments about a survivability outside the womb, but let’s face it a prematurely born child is more likely to survive if it’s born in London than a village in Africa. Does that mean African foetuses become humans later than one lucky enough to have been born in Europe? Of course it doesn’t.

But as BFC says the pro abortion arguments are very strong as well. Who would want to go back to the horrors of back street abortions?

So we end up with a messy and possibly immoral compromise.

But back to the op - Whether the leader of the DUP appreciates all the nuances of the debate, or whether his position stems from “a woman’s place is in the home and her job is produce and raise my sons”, would be interesting to find out.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top