Are they sure this person is from Labour? [Archive]

Streeteh

25-02-2009, 15:06

It says in the article that the texting held no sway on the crash itself; by that i presume they mean he had finished texting well before he actually crashed and killed the man. He is being charged for the use of his mobile phone while driving, not for actually causing a fatal accident as he didn't cause it. As it also said in the article two other cars barely missed the guy as he had totalled his car in the fast lane at night, i imagine his headlights had ceased working due to the crash and therefore was very difficult to see.

Charging this guy for manslaughter would be the same as doing the same to me if i had been seen speeding on a main road but late, while driving at the speed limit in a residential area, accidentally hit a person who ran into the road. Just because i was speeding elsewhere does not mean that it had any effect on the actual accident. Just because he was doing something dangerous shortly before does not mean he was doing it when it happened.

[EDIT] Damn you desmo, i would have looked far more intelligent if you hadn't beaten me to the punch at pointing that out.

cleanbluesky

25-02-2009, 15:10

Having read the article again, it seems the texting had nothing to do with the accident. Typical sensational headline really. The car he hit had already crashed and was parked backwards in the outside lane of the motorway. Somebody else had already hit it and another had to swerve around it. That could have been any number of people that caused the fatal impact.

He pleaded guilty to dangerous driving.

Davey_Pitch

25-02-2009, 15:42

He pleaded guilty to dangerous driving.
Isn't that what they class texting while you're driving? If so, he has no real option other than to admit it.

Streeteh

25-02-2009, 16:05

The point people are missing is, he got prosecuted for texting yes, but the fact a fatal car crash followed the texting is not a part of his punishment. The judge deemed that the texting, the crime he got the short sentence for, had no bearing on the fatal car crash that followed.

100s of people text while driving every day, this man just happened to be involved in an accident afterwards. The police checked his phone and found he had been texting while driving earlier and so prosecuted him for that.

He didn't kill someone because he was texting, he just had an accident and because of it was caught for texting earlier.

Feek

25-02-2009, 20:09

He's one of the token Muslims they trot out any time they need to pacify the savages. What a scumbag

What on earth does religion have to do with this?

Streeteh

25-02-2009, 20:44

What on earth does religion have to do with this?

Absolutely bugger all, i would have asked the same question as you but realized i couldn't be bothered.

cleanbluesky

25-02-2009, 20:54

What on earth does religion have to do with this?

Religion was incidental to the comment I made about his role under the Labour party, so you tell me why the comment sent your moral compass spinning...

Feek

25-02-2009, 20:58

It wasn't me who brought up the religion subject, I'd be interested to know why you felt it was relevant. You must have thought so or you'd not have mentioned it in the first place.

Slinwagh

25-02-2009, 20:59

So we will soon have another convicted Peer who has served time in prison sitting in the House of Lords overseeing law and policy in the UK.

Mark

25-02-2009, 20:59

Religion was incidental to the comment I made about his role under the Labour party, so you tell me why the comment sent your moral compass spinning...
The question - which you obviously failed to spot - is why you even thought it necessary to mention religion in the first place, let alone political persuasion (which is also, I might add, incidental).

cleanbluesky

25-02-2009, 21:10

It wasn't me who brought up the religion subject, I'd be interested to know why you felt it was relevant. You must have thought so or you'd not have mentioned it in the first place.

It seems to be far more important to you than I, it was incidental to my comment. If you're trying to imply something please state it.

cleanbluesky

25-02-2009, 21:13

The question - which you obviously failed to spot - is why you even thought it necessary to mention religion in the first place, let alone political persuasion (which is also, I might add, incidental).

That wasn't a question, because there was no direct question. If thats YOUR question, I'll answer.

I didn't think it necessary to state his religion. Why should I need a reason to supply a documented fact on the man? Do you highlight the fact because you find it controversial? If so, please state that.
Also, I didn't find it necessary to state his political persuasion, its stated in the article. I made a comment on his character, that of a stooge, and it was a valid comment.

Feek

25-02-2009, 21:25

If you're trying to imply something please state it.

Sure.

You seem to bring religion up pretty much whenever and wherever you can. In fact I'd go as far as to say that you seem to be obsessed by it and it's very obvious by anyone with half a brain cell that you're incredibly anti-Muslim. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has noticed this in your posts.

cleanbluesky

25-02-2009, 21:28

Sure.

You seem to bring religion up pretty much whenever and wherever you can. In fact I'd go as far as to say that you seem to be obsessed by it and it's very obvious by anyone with half a brain cell that you're anti-Muslim. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has noticed this in your posts.

I am anti-Islam, that is to say that I have done an investigation into Islam and I dislike many aspects of it largely due to militarism within Islamism and human rights issues in sharia and the Koran. Not particularly controversial given that Islam prides itself on its values, not information that's particularly hard to find either.
I made a single incidental comment on his religion, and have merely answered questions so it seems I am not the driving force behind bringing religion into this thread.
I do comment on religion in other threads, although only where I think it needs comment and where that comment has not been made by other people.

cleanbluesky

25-02-2009, 22:07

I've been informed that the reference I have made earlier was, in fact, unneeded. Therefore I shall comment that Lord Ahmed usually speaks up regarding issues of the religion that dare not speak its name.

phykell

25-02-2009, 22:39

I am anti-Islam, that is to say that I have done an investigation into Islam and I dislike many aspects of it largely due to militarism within Islamism and human rights issues in sharia and the Koran. Not particularly controversial given that Islam prides itself on its values, not information that's particularly hard to find either.
Speak to the hundreds of millions of Muslims who truly believe their religion is one of peace and compare the weight of such opinion against the relatively negligible number of extremists who believe their religion gives them the excuse to kill.

I don't much care about your anti-Islam sentiments TBH but what I do object to is that you only single that out as being worthy of your contempt whilst ignoring another religion which also has more than its fair share of lunatics. The Christian religion also has extremists who believe the Bible fully justifies their opinions and actions even if such actions involve the murder of innocent men, women and children. I'm reminded of the Warrington bomb where women and children were deliberately targetted as part of the IRA's bombing campaign against the UK. That bomb was set to go off at around lunch-time, on a Saturday afternoon, just outside McDonalds. Can you think of a more extreme action than that? The Christian religion(s) have been used as an excuse to commit terrible sins against the human race for millennia and the Bible and its teaching have been twisted to suit the purpose of, yes, extremists.

So eschew religious fanaticism, position yourself against terrorism; but always bear in mind that the enemy is the extremist and *not* the religion. Even Bush wasn't stupid enough to say Islam is the enemy. In fact, the only person I can think of, that would be stupid and ignorant enough to say such a thing, would be the leader of the BNP. The way you're going, people will think you sympathise with the BNP - but that can't be true, can it? You're a *thinker* after all :)

cleanbluesky

25-02-2009, 22:56

Speak to the hundreds of millions of Muslims who truly believe their religion is one of peace and compare the weight of such opinion against the relatively negligible number of extremists who believe their religion gives them the excuse to kill.

This paragraph carries an assumption that you know anything about the prevalence of people you are talking about. Several times you have criticised me for treating people as a large bloc, although now you feel free to comment on the attitude of hundreds of millions of people. It seems that you are not against prejudice, merely against any estimate that don't serve a prejudice you'd prefer to believe.

I don't much care about your anti-Islam sentiments TBH but what I do object to is that you only single that out as being worthy of your contempt whilst ignoring another religion which also has more than its fair share of lunatics. The Christian religion also has extremists who believe the Bible fully justifies their opinions and actions even if such actions involve the murder of innocent men, women and children. I'm reminded of the Warrington bomb where women and children were deliberately targetted as part of the IRA's bombing campaign against the UK. That bomb was set to go off at around lunch-time, on a Saturday afternoon, just outside McDonalds. Can you think of a more extreme action than that? The Christian religion(s) have been used as an excuse to commit terrible sins against the human race for millennia and the Bible and its teaching have been twisted to suit the purpose of, yes, extremists.

I can see your point although I think the fact that you're willing to volunteer this information demonstrates exactly why I am more quiet about other religions - other people are usually willing to say it in my place and are already aware of it. I only speak when I have something to say and in the past I have spoken about the negative aspects of Christianity and Scientology (but what about all the good scientologists, surely we shouldn't hate Tom Cruise he was in Top Gun)

So eschew religious fanaticism, position yourself against terrorism; but always bear in mind that the enemy is the extremist and *not* the religion. Even Bush wasn't stupid enough to say Islam is the enemy. In fact, the only person I can think of, that would be stupid and ignorant enough to say such a thing, would be the leader of the BNP. The way you're going, people will think you sympathise with the BNP - but that can't be true, can it? You're a *thinker* after all :)

The idea that extremism is the sophistic at best and serves only to direct deserved distaste away from a population that believe in a anti-social ideology. I hear no-one else use the 'extremism versus moderate' ideology to anything else. Is it okay to be just a little homophobic/racist etc. etc. are there grades of racist? "It's okay, he's a good racist..." "Yes, I called you a nigger, but you know... positive, it was positive..."

You'd have to look at the religion to know whether the religion was at fault. You need to look at the religion. I've said this several times, and it gets repetitively ignored because its harder to think really nice thoughts about Islam when most accepted interpretations involve killing homosexuals. How exactly does one excuse killing of homosexuals, when you are a liberal? You can't, so ignore it. Produce some contextless rhetoric about the idea that a tiny group of amorphous 'extremists' are responsible for all the bad things that anyone with half a brain are turned off by, and point the moral finger at anyone who is willing to point out the problem.

NokkonWud

26-02-2009, 00:43

[EDIT] Damn you desmo, i would have looked far more intelligent if you hadn't beaten me to the punch at pointing that out.

No you wouldn't :p.

Garp

26-02-2009, 00:46

cleanbluesky

26-02-2009, 01:15

CBS:

Why do you have this obsession with bringing religion, and more specifically anti-muslim sentiments into almost every topic of current affairs or debate? It's abundantly clear that you're a closed minded and bigoted individual. You seem to go out of your way to find any news article you can that is anti-muslim or could possibly be twisted in any way to be anti-muslim, and then post it here. We almost never see any thread started by you that isn't such.
You're being not only repetitive, but dull, and it's only serving to completely remove the value of any point you may be raising.
Of course you will now naturally follow this up in your usual morally superior way turn around and say that I'm the one being bigoted, same as you have done for the past 4+ years of your posting that I've seen.

Please, for the love of anything you consider to be holy or worthy, stop with these posts.

1) I made one comment. I'm not the driving force behind this - if you don't want the discussion to go this way then don't make a contribution to taking it there.

2) The rest of what you've said has been explained.

3) I have no reason to insult you because I actually have confidence in the accuracy of what I have said. I have no habit of accusing others of bigotry, I believe others have inaccurate opinions and selective attention but I don't believe bigotry is the most appropriate word to describe their motivations (whatever they may be). I do not tread an easy moral high ground, my opinion is the lesser of two evils and it is clearly a controversial one - but as controversial as it is I also believe it to be the fairest to all and the most honest.

4) This has become about me very quickly, which is a convenient way not to address the points that I've raised.

cleanbluesky

26-02-2009, 01:16

Someone should bin or rearrange this waste of a thread, especially considering the event in the original news article would make far better discussion.

Davey_Pitch

26-02-2009, 01:23

Someone should bin or rearrange this waste of a thread, especially considering the event in the original news article would make far better discussion.
That's the one and only thing you've said so far in this thread that I wholeheartedly agree with.

phykell

26-02-2009, 02:06

Someone should bin or rearrange this waste of a thread, especially considering the event in the original news article would make far better discussion.
Your first post in this thread began, "He's one of the token Muslims...".

Just pointing that out...

Chuckles

26-02-2009, 02:09

1my opinion is the lesser of two evils and it is clearly a controversial one - but as controversial as it is I also believe it to be the fairest to all and the most honest.

I don't think it's controversial. I've been winding up enough groups on facebook with absolutely huge memberships to realise that it could well be a majority viewpoint. If not, then certainly one held by a huge amount of people.

Would you like it to be a controversial one? :shocked:

Mark

26-02-2009, 02:12

1) I made one comment. I'm not the driving force behind this - if you don't want the discussion to go this way then don't make a contribution to taking it there.
The problem with that argument is that you only addressed this one thread - rather than the persistent tone of your posts. If you're anti-Islam, so be it (I happen to disagree, but that's another thread), but twisting every news story that might allow your to peddle your rather one-sided views soon gets very tiresome, which then leads to what's happened in this thread.

However...

Someone should bin or rearrange this waste of a thread, especially considering the event in the original news article would make far better discussion.
this I wholehearedly agree with.

phykell

26-02-2009, 02:39

This paragraph carries an assumption that you know anything about the prevalence of people you are talking about. Several times you have criticised me for treating people as a large bloc, although now you feel free to comment on the attitude of hundreds of millions of people. It seems that you are not against prejudice, merely against any estimate that don't serve a prejudice you'd prefer to believe.
Wrong and here's my reasoning. I think it's a perfectly valid assumption that so many Muslims regard Islam as a religion of peace. I daresay hundreds of millions of Christians think the same about their religion too. Of course, if you'd care to find any significant number of Muslims who would claim their religion was not one of peace, I'd be *very* surprised indeed.

I can see your point although I think the fact that you're willing to volunteer this information demonstrates exactly why I am more quiet about other religions - other people are usually willing to say it in my place and are already aware of it. I only speak when I have something to say and in the past I have spoken about the negative aspects of Christianity and Scientology (but what about all the good scientologists, surely we shouldn't hate Tom Cruise he was in Top Gun)
The fact is that your first entry into this thread was to remark on the fact the guy in question was a Muslim. You then stated further on that you were "anti-Islam" - that's quite a statement to make TBH and quite unfortunate because it colours any subsequent debate you contribute to with regards to any claim of being objective.

The idea that extremism is the sophistic at best and serves only to direct deserved distaste away from a population that believe in a anti-social ideology. I hear no-one else use the 'extremism versus moderate' ideology to anything else. Is it okay to be just a little homophobic/racist etc. etc. are there grades of racist? "It's okay, he's a good racist..." "Yes, I called you a nigger, but you know... positive, it was positive..."
I imagine there are plenty of dyed-in-the-wool racists and homophobes out there who would draw the line well before bombing innocent men, women and children. The comparison you're making doesn't really stand up TBH.

You'd have to look at the religion to know whether the religion was at fault. You need to look at the religion. I've said this several times, and it gets repetitively ignored because its harder to think really nice thoughts about Islam when most accepted interpretations involve killing homosexuals. How exactly does one excuse killing of homosexuals, when you are a liberal? You can't, so ignore it. Produce some contextless rhetoric about the idea that a tiny group of amorphous 'extremists' are responsible for all the bad things that anyone with half a brain are turned off by, and point the moral finger at anyone who is willing to point out the problem.
Shall I tell you what *you're* ignoring? The fact that religion can be *interpreted*. Put it this way, if Islam was so simple in its definition that its words could not be misinterpreted, they wouldn't need Islamic scholars. It's similar for the Christian religion - I'm sure the Malleus Maleficarum was written in reasonably good faith no matter how many - probably innocent - tens of thousands died as a result over the many years that followed.

I would suggest that you don't know enough about Islam to comprehensively condemn it and you certainly have no right to dismiss everybody else's opinion as blithely as you do. Some of us might just have more of an insight into Islam than you give us credit for.

Slinwagh

26-02-2009, 03:04

Would it not be fair to say that issue with any religion is not the faith itself but the interpretation of a religion by it's followers?

Back on topic the issue for me here is a peer that will return to the House of Lords. It is very possible that this Lord in the future could find himself debating and voting on the very piece of legislation, that being the Road Traffic Act that he was convicted under.

Garp

26-02-2009, 03:31

1) I made one comment. I'm not the driving force behind this - if you don't want the discussion to go this way then don't make a contribution to taking it there.

It's called "the straw that broke the camel's back".

2) The rest of what you've said has been explained.

That doesn't make it any less worth pointing out, particularly as my post would have made no sense without the context. The purpose of my post was to point out in no uncertain terms that it really is getting pathetic and boring. It's great that you love debating, but when it seems that all you ever do is bring debates that's when it gets boring; particularly if you never take anything away from the debate. If you've ever wondered why people have stopped replying to you in other places and on here it's not because you've "won" or any such thing it's because they've realised that it is pointless ever talking to you about such subjects.

3) I have no reason to insult you because I actually have confidence in the accuracy of what I have said. I have no habit of accusing others of bigotry, I believe others have inaccurate opinions and selective attention but I don't believe bigotry is the most appropriate word to describe their motivations (whatever they may be). I do not tread an easy moral high ground, my opinion is the lesser of two evils and it is clearly a controversial one - but as controversial as it is I also believe it to be the fairest to all and the most honest.

big⋅ot /ˈbɪgət/
–noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

How would you describe someone who continually attacks one specific religion? Racist is the wrong word though your approach to muslims seems rather similar to how people used to treat blacks, "theist" means something totally different, religionist isn't right; both those latter two would imply it's because you were devoutly . Maybe we should define a new word here? "Creedist"?

4) This has become about me very quickly, which is a convenient way not to address the points that I've raised.

That again does not detract from the value of my points. To be honest I really don't care about the original article. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, straw, camel & back.

Tiggy

26-02-2009, 11:14

I think like CBS said, it's high time this thread was locked :)

Matblack

26-02-2009, 11:22

I see no reason to lock this thread it seems to be quite a reasonable discussion. I might move it to the 'serious business' sub forum though.

MB

AboveTheSalt

26-02-2009, 11:40

I see no reason to lock this thread it seems to be quite a reasonable discussion. I might move it to the 'serious business' sub forum though.

MBI'm not quite clear why you feel the thread shouldn't be closed. It began with an uninformed comment on the sentence passed on Lord Ahmed and then forked off into criticism of a particular obsession of an Islamophobic attention seeker who seems to have an unhealthy fascination with serial killers and sex offenders.

I suggest that the sentence passed on Lord Ahmed has been adequately explained although the Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5805123.ece) article does give further details.

As to the rest, why not split it off into a thread of its own?

Matblack

26-02-2009, 11:47

I'm not quite clear why you feel the thread shouldn't be closed. It began with an uninformed comment on the sentence passed on Lord Ahmed and then forked off into criticism of a particular obsession of an Islamophobic attention seeker who seems to have an unhealthy fascination with serial killers and sex offenders.

I suggest that the sentence passed on Lord Ahmed has been adequately explained.

As to the rest, why not split it off into a thread of its own?

CBS hasn't asked for the thread to be closed and seems quite happy to defend himself, its a reasonable discussion about peoples prejudice and the vilification of Islam over other faiths, as such its OK in my eyes. I agree the original question has been answered but if we closed every discussion as soon as the original question had been answered then life would be pretty boring :)

MB

cleanbluesky

26-02-2009, 18:23

The fact is that your first entry into this thread was to remark on the fact the guy in question was a Muslim. You then stated further on that you were "anti-Islam" - that's quite a statement to make TBH and quite unfortunate because it colours any subsequent debate you contribute to with regards to any claim of being objective.

If there was no existing controversy amongst others, my incidental comment on him would have passed much as my other incidental comments on him had. As I said, I have a negative opinion on Islam that is based on my understanding of the objective facts of the religion.

Shall I tell you what *you're* ignoring? The fact that religion can be *interpreted*. Put it this way, if Islam was so simple in its definition that its words could not be misinterpreted, they wouldn't need Islamic scholars. It's similar for the Christian religion - I'm sure the Malleus Maleficarum was written in reasonably good faith no matter how many - probably innocent - tens of thousands died as a result over the many years that followed.

I would suggest that you don't know enough about Islam to comprehensively condemn it and you certainly have no right to dismiss everybody else's opinion as blithely as you do. Some of us might just have more of an insight into Islam than you give us credit for.

This is an aspect that deserves more discussion. I believe that you're attempting to make the argument that the religion itself is not inherently negative and that it has been corrupted. It is true that the Koran and hadiths themselves have been altered both by a Caliph who sought to make a standardised copy and more recently it is believed that the original text was wrongly translated on the basis that it was mistaken for a similar script.
If that were the case, which are we to believe is the 'true' religion? Since you like latin, do you not think it is fair to say vox populi, vox dei suggests that what we currently see of Islam, IS the authentic Islam. As far as disagreement within different schools of Islam are concerned, there are different interpretations although it is unfortunate that most of the accepted versions still involve gender inequalities, practices and beliefs we would consider human rights violations and punishments we would consider cruel and unusual.

The problem as I see it, is not that such practices exist, because we have a similar history. The problem is that the West is giving far too much credence to an ideology without solid reasoning that holds beliefs that we abandoned as primitive and unfair a long time ago. If we have confidence in our own ways, surely we can help others by correcting their mistakes rather than excusing and ignoring them.

cleanbluesky

26-02-2009, 18:27

That doesn't make it any less worth pointing out, particularly as my post would have made no sense without the context. The purpose of my post was to point out in no uncertain terms that it really is getting pathetic and boring. It's great that you love debating, but when it seems that all you ever do is bring debates that's when it gets boring; particularly if you never take anything away from the debate. If you've ever wondered why people have stopped replying to you in other places and on here it's not because you've "won" or any such thing it's because they've realised that it is pointless ever talking to you about such subjects.

I'd disagree strongly with that, simply because people are not debating. I am putting forward a case, and questioning their points and I find retorts like the above that I've highlighted in bold. I understand what you are trying to impart, but it is of no use to me as I wish to discuss fact and principle rather than your unexplained feelings.

How would you describe someone who continually attacks one specific religion? Racist is the wrong word though your approach to muslims seems rather similar to how people used to treat blacks, "theist" means something totally different, religionist isn't right; both those latter two would imply it's because you were devoutly . Maybe we should define a new word here? "Creedist"?

You could find words for it, or you could just examine the points I am making.

That again does not detract from the value of my points. To be honest I really don't care about the original article. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, straw, camel & back.

In other words, your replies in this thread are about ME rather than the issue we are discussing. Use the PM system.

Mark

26-02-2009, 19:02

If there was no existing controversy amongst others, my incidental comment on him would have passed much as my other incidental comments on him had. As I said, I have a negative opinion on Islam that is based on my understanding of the objective facts of the religion.
In other words, your replies in this thread are about ME rather than the issue we are discussing. Use the PM system.
Reality dawns? Perhaps I might suggest that the vast majority of comments since your post in this thread concern your attitude towards the issue rather than the issue itself.

What has become the issue here is why you saw fit to bring religion into this thread at all - especially given your insistence that it was merely incidental. Had it been just a one-off then I'm sure even then it would have passed by without remark (or with minimal remark), but these sorts of religious comments appear to have become habitual.

What you may think in private is your own business, but if it's controversial enough and you express it in public often enough then you can expect it to get noticed and commented upon, as has happened.

Will

26-02-2009, 19:21

It's up to the OP to request the thread be closed, or us if we deemed it inappropriate and I don't see why it should be closed.

Feek

26-02-2009, 20:33

but it is of no use to me as I wish to discuss fact and principle

No, no you don't. You just want to preach at people until they agree with you. As Garp said, you won't take anything away from a debate, or accept that you might be even just slightly wrong. You just repeat the same stuff over and over again.

If you've ever wondered why people have stopped replying to you in other places and on here it's not because you've "won" or any such thing it's because they've realised that it is pointless ever talking to you about such subjects.

Nail. Head. I've had enough too. You won't care and I won't see any reply, but welcome to my ignore list.

cleanbluesky

26-02-2009, 23:41

Reality dawns? Perhaps I might suggest that the vast majority of comments since your post in this thread concern your attitude towards the issue rather than the issue itself.

What has become the issue here is why you saw fit to bring religion into this thread at all - especially given your insistence that it was merely incidental. Had it been just a one-off then I'm sure even then it would have passed by without remark (or with minimal remark), but these sorts of religious comments appear to have become habitual.

The comment was incidental, I've explained my attitude towards it and the reasoning behind it.

What you may think in private is your own business, but if it's controversial enough and you express it in public often enough then you can expect it to get noticed and commented upon, as has happened.

The religion that dare not speak its name.

There has been nothing controversial about me using the name of a religion, although it carries an obvious controversy that others would rather ignore. I also think that the tone of comments directed at me have been inappropriate.

cleanbluesky

26-02-2009, 23:43

No, no you don't. You just want to preach at people until they agree with you. As Garp said, you won't take anything away from a debate, or accept that you might be even just slightly wrong. You just repeat the same stuff over and over again.

I want to discuss this with people that are capable of having a serious discussion - Phykell is an example in this thread. I don't wish any communication with people who immediately throw subjective emotive comments around, shift the debate immediately onto the debator without addressing the issue and then feel such inability to discuss anything that you need to add that person to the ignore list. Not that I think you've put me on ignore.

cleanbluesky

26-02-2009, 23:52

I don't think it's controversial. I've been winding up enough groups on facebook with absolutely huge memberships to realise that it could well be a majority viewpoint. If not, then certainly one held by a huge amount of people.

I think a lot of people feel that way, and a lot of people feel the other way. I think the problem is a decent reasoning for both sides of the opinion.

Would you like it to be a controversial one? :shocked:

If I discuss it with people who already agree its no fun, if I discuss it with people go manic at the mention of the subject, its no fun.

Chuckles

27-02-2009, 00:05

If I discuss it with people who already agree its no fun, if I discuss it with people go manic at the mention of the subject, its no fun.

I'd say arguing with people you disagree with you is second only to arguing with people about something you don't even believe :p

cleanbluesky

27-02-2009, 00:09

I'd say arguing with people you disagree with you is second only to arguing with people about something you don't even believe :p

After re-reading this, I think that you and Feek have a point. I have come across way too forcefully in this discussion and have been too rigid when it didn't develop in a way that I would have enjoyed. I apologise.

cleanbluesky

27-02-2009, 14:52

I've been thinking about this a bit and I've got to say that I've held this strong viewpoint for a number of years, and I've also put it across in the same way for a number of years. In that time, public opinion has generally changed in a way that I find much more in-line with my own and more realistic although the subject tends to divide and there are also many people who strongly disagree with me. There was a time that putting my case forward in such a vitriolic way was right but the world has moved on and it is no longer necessary. I also believe that this is not the place either.

I think a lot of opinions have changed in the last few years, and so my attitude should change with it. Selah.

It may be that this subject will come up again and I will be more equitable in the way that I approach it.