[Slayer]

@dafydd wrote:

O words fail me on this – I mean has anyone asked those haemaroid bound idiots in the Sudan, if they really think that the Prophet (bearer of the word of God by the way), if he would really be offended by a child’s toy?

If you read the BBC news, you’ll see most of Sudan thinks its just as barking as we do- not that facts would stop Wasp having a good rant :wink:

[Slayer]

@sharongooner wrote:

We still get our Union Jack out at parties and stuff. Be proud of our Britishness.

I find it hard to think of things to be proud of most of the time though :oops:

Really?

I find so much to be proud of…so much still to be put right but this country belongs to me, it is in my blood and it always will be

[Slayer]

@waspish wrote:

ive watched a documentary tonight about the book angels and demons by dan brown, and the book is in part about the bilderburgers and their desigh for a new world order in deed theyve even got masonic symbols all over the dollar bill. which i found rather disturbing, as it gives credence to the theory that the masons and churches are still trying to enslave the workers. im going to have a good read up about this thanks for the post emma cheers.. 8) 8)

Wasnt this something David Icke was telling us 15 years ago on Wogan…..n we all thought he was barking!

[Slayer]

I also assume by “bikers”, Wasp doesnt mean the thousands of scrotes who ride motorbikes up and down streets in every estate in the land, with no helmet, insurance or tax or any kind of respect for law and order

I guess the bikers Wasp means are the “seasoned” 40 somethings who have big bikes n lots of leather

[Slayer]

Most of us are hypocrites for getting maried in a church as most of us don’t go to church

3 of my kids are christened, 4th one will not be- he can find his own way in life

[Slayer]

@ubermik wrote:

@slayer wrote:

@ubermik wrote:

Morality is subjective tho

Each person has their own set of morals so to THEM anything at all they find morally abhorent IS immoral, but that is no more a universally true view than that of someone who thinks the same thing ISNT immoral based on a different personal morality

So no, I really cant see why these things trouble you really, I cant see why other peoples preferences, likes or dislikes should be of the slightest concern to you whatsoever to be perfectly honest

As I wouldnt expect you to feel a need to change YOUR views just because someone else doesnt agree with them its EQUALLY reasonable for you to not expect someone else to change their views simply because you dont agree with them

So “if” (as I’m not convinced) you ARE infact gay then thats “it”, youre JUST gay, youre nothing special, you being gay doesnt make you any better or worse than anyone else and it most certainly doesnt make your views or opinions any more important or valid than anyone elses

If you cant accept other peoples views when they are different then you really give up the right to expect anyone to accept your views too

The word “hypocrite” springs to mind

Morality..for the individual….may be be subjective but for society it becomes objective, particularly in law. We may not agree with its objectivity but are required to abide by its rules and regualtions or pay the penalty as a result.

Hence paedophilia is subjecyively immoral to most but subjectively moral and indeed natural for some. However society has placed a boundary which is legally defined, objectively, as one not to be crossed. hence with murder, incest etc etc etc.

If society, as a generic whole not as a myriad of individuals who are live, work, and sleep togehter, accepts the rule of law as objective (as indeed it must to maintain its stability without descending into anarchy) then it must recognise or at least accept the objectivity of morality in a legal sense. This acceptance therefore directly affects our sense of right and wrong over many many centuries and defines our nation’s character. It develops and evolves during that time to accept fundamental changes in law and will eventually take the viewpoint of the law.

Hence homosexuality has only been legal for 30 years or so and hence we still have a viewpoint of many, formed by legislation and society’s view of right and wrong, which believes its wrong- society cannot metamorphasise overnight- it cannot wholly reneg on its committment to what is believed to be right until the 1960’s only to be then told “oops, we think we were wrong on this one”

Homosexuality is not “wrong” because society says it isnt “wrong”. Individuals will say homosexuality is wrong because their views, as an individual, do not have to conform to society’s view. Give it a couple of centuries Pikey n we’ll have a gay black prime minister

Wasnt that entire post just a tad pointless slayer?

Considering that murder and the inherrant difference between something thats legal and something thats ILlegal was adressed in the later exchange already but instead you had an inate need to go back to the earlier post, act as tho it hadnt been clarified and state pretty much exactly what I had already expanded on anyway?

Were homosexuality ILlegal then at this moment in time it would and should be treated like paedophilia and murder UNTIL that law changed

But as its NOT illegal its not the same

Obvious really

Err..I don’t see in any post above mine anything qualifying WHY poofters are considered immoral as per the title of the thread

Reading on one of your further posts… homosexuality is legal now and this was achieved through social change HOWEVER social change is not the same as societal change. Just because like minded, liberal, activists believe something to be wrong and effect a change in law does not automatically mean society accepts that change nor revises its view of the “crime” as was

Hence my post stands as valid and an answer to Pikey’s thread topic

Poofters are considered immoral by society, as a whole, because society’s opinion, as a whole, is formed by centuries of law and constraints and that view of immorality is not changed overnight just because homosexuality became legal.

[Slayer]

@ubermik wrote:

Morality is subjective tho

Each person has their own set of morals so to THEM anything at all they find morally abhorent IS immoral, but that is no more a universally true view than that of someone who thinks the same thing ISNT immoral based on a different personal morality

So no, I really cant see why these things trouble you really, I cant see why other peoples preferences, likes or dislikes should be of the slightest concern to you whatsoever to be perfectly honest

As I wouldnt expect you to feel a need to change YOUR views just because someone else doesnt agree with them its EQUALLY reasonable for you to not expect someone else to change their views simply because you dont agree with them

So “if” (as I’m not convinced) you ARE infact gay then thats “it”, youre JUST gay, youre nothing special, you being gay doesnt make you any better or worse than anyone else and it most certainly doesnt make your views or opinions any more important or valid than anyone elses

If you cant accept other peoples views when they are different then you really give up the right to expect anyone to accept your views too

The word “hypocrite” springs to mind

Morality..for the individual….may be be subjective but for society it becomes objective, particularly in law. We may not agree with its objectivity but are required to abide by its rules and regualtions or pay the penalty as a result.

Hence paedophilia is subjecyively immoral to most but subjectively moral and indeed natural for some. However society has placed a boundary which is legally defined, objectively, as one not to be crossed. hence with murder, incest etc etc etc.

If society, as a generic whole not as a myriad of individuals who are live, work, and sleep togehter, accepts the rule of law as objective (as indeed it must to maintain its stability without descending into anarchy) then it must recognise or at least accept the objectivity of morality in a legal sense. This acceptance therefore directly affects our sense of right and wrong over many many centuries and defines our nation’s character. It develops and evolves during that time to accept fundamental changes in law and will eventually take the viewpoint of the law.

Hence homosexuality has only been legal for 30 years or so and hence we still have a viewpoint of many, formed by legislation and society’s view of right and wrong, which believes its wrong- society cannot metamorphasise overnight- it cannot wholly reneg on its committment to what is believed to be right until the 1960’s only to be then told “oops, we think we were wrong on this one”

Homosexuality is not “wrong” because society says it isnt “wrong”. Individuals will say homosexuality is wrong because their views, as an individual, do not have to conform to society’s view. Give it a couple of centuries Pikey n we’ll have a gay black prime minister

[Slayer]

@waspish wrote:

you make valid points there slayerbut the facts remain that there is a severe feeling of unrest and hopelessness among many thousands of english people who feel their towns [or villages are being over run with these people.] im sorry i dont buy your argument that their children all speak english thats utter crap. we have a nation of fekless stay at home youths here who are perfectly capable of working who would rather sit on their arses and watch trisha or kyle and co rather than work, they should be offered the work these immigrants are doing and if they refuse then their benefit should be stopped full stop. then we would not need ivan and his wife and 4 kids to come here to pick spuds at a fiver a hour whilst claiming 300 quid a week in housing benefit working tax credits and home grants to sey themselves up. let alone little nikitas teeth need doing and mrs ivan needs an operation to fix her bad back or grandad ivan who has tb but hey thats ok its good for the economy…. what a load of bollix. and yes i do keep saying its not a colour thing because if i dont the first thing you and others do is scream racist at the top of your voice so i include the saying to get the point over that we qare being invaded and our nations identity is beginning to talk with a distinct accent. somewhere between punjabi and russianesque gang talk. isnt anyone here slightly worried whatwill happen in 15years when theirs start breeding with ours and the nation becomes segregated into white and black, all hating one another..

Wasp

I fully agree that the lazy scrotes that sit in their backsides all day and do nothing should be made to work..or lose their benefits. I completely agree that this would prevent some migration as if we do our own jobs there isnt anyone else left to do them.

As for 15 years time? (n this is where become confused)..the vast majority of migration at the moment is white and eurpoean so how segration into black and white will occur I’m not following.

Clearly you views are formed by your experiences in West Yorkshire just like mine are formed by my experiences in Lincolnshire. As far as I’m concerned, if you’re born here n given a British passport, then you’re British…dont matter what you ancestry is. Thats how most of us can trace our ancestry back to another country other than “England” cos somehwere along the lines we’ve all been put into one big mixed pot- the original mongrel nation (and I say that with a huge amount of pride).

[Slayer]

@waspish wrote:

you may call me paranoid, you may call me racist, and you may disagree but i for one am certain that our country is being reduced to a racially divided cess pit where many thousands of foreign people, all with different cultures and all with different ideas of right and wrong are being shoved into small towns and the indigenous peoples of these towns are seing their social systems such as you say housing, schools, health, and all the benefit choices being shoved to the point of bursting, so in the interest of fair play explainto me how the following benefit our country.
up to 60 somalis a day arriving in tower hamlets demanding assylum.
school classes with 35 children, two thirds of which dont speak english.
over 400 new cases of tb reported last year alone mainly imported from yhe indian sub continent.
a market town in lincoln where 3000 young immigrant males from eastern european countries have been added to the town doubling it in size in less than two years.
hospital maternity wards full to bursting with foreign babies being born at the rate of 4 to every english one.
councils all over britain spending thousands of pounds translating leaflets into up to 8 languages for foreign people to claim housing and other benefits.
people arriving here and claiming tax credits and child benefit for children living abroad.
single women from african countries arriving here homeless and penniless to be iven houses an benefits then being allowed to send for their extended families to come and join them on the gravy train.
these are just a few of my paranoid thoughts and mabey none of this happens in other folks worlds but it does in the real one where i am.?
please enlighten me. :wink:

And to follow on from my previous

An example of positive benefits

A school in Lincoln (Monks Abbey Primary) was in danger of closing and merging with another primary school due to falling numbers. Monks Abbey is in one the poorer parts of Lincoln with no other local primary school- a closure would have meant children could no longer walk to school but would have to be driven across town (or bussed as many do not have 2 cars..or even 1!)

The threat was very real until last year when an increase migration into the area of Polish families saw a 20% increase in the school population (and yes, all the kids could speak Englsih very well) which meant the threat of closure has gone.

Weigh up the pros and cons- as said before I live in a village which is 35% English and 65% Eastern European due to landworkers n it has yet to cause any problems at all other than a windfall for the only pub in the village- it works here because the actual fabric of the village hasnt changed, it is still the same village it always has been just with a few more accents. Its no less safer, no more violent etc

[Slayer]

@waspish wrote:

you may call me paranoid, you may call me racist, and you may disagree but i for one am certain that our country is being reduced to a racially divided cess pit where many thousands of foreign people, all with different cultures and all with different ideas of right and wrong are being shoved into small towns and the indigenous peoples of these towns are seing their social systems such as you say housing, schools, health, and all the benefit choices being shoved to the point of bursting, so in the interest of fair play explainto me how the following benefit our country.
up to 60 somalis a day arriving in tower hamlets demanding assylum.
school classes with 35 children, two thirds of which dont speak english.
over 400 new cases of tb reported last year alone mainly imported from yhe indian sub continent.
a market town in lincoln where 3000 young immigrant males from eastern european countries have been added to the town doubling it in size in less than two years.
hospital maternity wards full to bursting with foreign babies being born at the rate of 4 to every english one.
councils all over britain spending thousands of pounds translating leaflets into up to 8 languages for foreign people to claim housing and other benefits.
people arriving here and claiming tax credits and child benefit for children living abroad.
single women from african countries arriving here homeless and penniless to be iven houses an benefits then being allowed to send for their extended families to come and join them on the gravy train.
these are just a few of my paranoid thoughts and mabey none of this happens in other folks worlds but it does in the real one where i am.?
please enlighten me. :wink:

Now read my statement again…slowly and with big breaths

Now read the final paragraph of my statement several times until you understand it

Right- now understand that I have said in my statement exactly what you’ve said in yours- immigration is NOT about race…it is about whether our hospitals, schools, social welfare support system etc is able to cope with unprecendented mass immigration, it is about the irrevocable change in an area’s makeup (thats Britons of ALL colours) and whether the benefits reaped from economic migration outweigh the negative costs

BUT you don’t have to state time and time again about “it’s not racist to say so”- it isnt if the issues are raised from an economic, social, health or education view point.

N which Lincolnshire town has had 3,000 immigrants “doubling its size”? That would mean the “town” only had 3,000 people to start with n where I come from, thats called a village!

[Author]

Posts