[ubermik]

I’m actually surprised the prophet himself wasnt flogged actually

After all, what an insult to the islamic faith for a prophet to be called “mo ham head”?????

And if you’ve ever been into a corner shop you will know how important muslims “prophets” are to them after all

I’m surprised he wasnt stoned to death amidst cries of “NO ham head, NO ham head”

I reckon the bear might end up with a chat show and a book deal out of it personally, after all a limp, personality less, pudgy, odd looking oddity can make a popular chat show host

And lets face it, thats just sharon osborne, but the teddy bear has far MORE charisma than her

[ubermik]

@cas wrote:

Uber,,,,,,,,the pavement isn’t the place for ‘adult’ cyclists. Iv’e no problem with children cycling on the pavement, it’s far safer for them, but adults are not, and should not, be allowed to ride them on either the pavement or pedestrian walkways, they really are old enough to know better.

Another pet hate of mine is when they cycle, on the pavement, to the pelican crossing, press the button for the lights to change and then cycle across!!! It’s ignorance on a huge scale. :twisted:

I totally disagree

Adult cyclists are on the whole far more likely to manoevre safely around pedestrians than kids anyway for one. Infact with current levels of child behaviour and their near untouchable status in the eyes of the law kids are actually far more likely to hit people just for the heck of it

Also, the moement cyclists start paying road tax, buying insurance and having to pass a test then, and only then SHOULD they belong on the road

As for being “on the path”, they wouldnt be, their cycle paths would be, so if they stay in them and you stay on your pedestrian part of the path whats yer problem?

[ubermik]

@slayer wrote:

@ubermik wrote:

Ex smiths singer during an interview commented that the british identity has been lost due to an open door policy on immigration and the flood of immigrants its brought to britain

The publication (NME) said

“He might once have been the voice of a generation, but given his comments in these two interviews, he’s certainly not speaking for us now.”

“Us” who exactly? Seems that a hell of a lot of people ARE infact saying and complaining about just that, even people who dont even live in the UK, werent born here and arent white or indigenous brits too

And how does any of that equate to “racism” anyway? I didnt notice him say “non white immigration” or “white british culture” so the words racism and racist dont actually belong in any statement connected to his comments to begin with and its about time people started having the balls to sue for slander or libel when the words are used innacurately over any and every comment that doesnt fall in love with our minority ass kissing left wing dictatorships perverted ideal of a multicultural nirvanna where anyone white and british spends their life apologising for our history and throwing away our culture because nobody else in the world seems to have any concept of what tolerance means unless THEY want it from someone else

The article is located here

http://uk.news.launch.yahoo.com/dyna/article.html?a=/29112007/140/smiths-star-morrissey-embroiled-racism-row.html&e=l_news_dm

Since when did racism have anything to do with colour? Jus cos he didnt state “white british” doesnt mean his comments arent viewed as racist. You can be jus as racist against white eastern europeans as you can against black afro caribbean. Incidentally- I didnt think his comments were racist in any way- it was a view point

Anyway, to take your point up- Ive seen several people comment about British “identity” as if its some virtual philosophy which once joined up the nation. Yet when you actually challenge them to explain what this identity was/is- they can’t. You can’t lose a nations identity

Our identity has changed, evolved, developed, matured etc over centuries and will continue to do so

I would be very interested to hear what you view as our nations identity- our raison d’etre

Firstly immigration applies equally to ALL “races”, ergo it CANT be racist unless it applied differently to people of different races, “british” isnt a “race”, ergo nothing said about british anything can be “racists” in the slightest, its nationalist or culturalst

As for “Our identity has changed, evolved, developed, matured etc over centuries and will continue to do so”

Well in that case why would anyone object to people coming here leaving THEIR culture at the door then? After all if all that “maturing” is a good thing what have they got to object to?

All cultures are, to the people who exhibit them “virtual” to a large extent, to someone whos culture it is its simply “how they are”

But aspects that are quite noticeably british culture, or were are, and have been quite frequently commented on by people of other cultures for a very long time which is a large part of what attracts our tourist business here to begin with and makes a lot of people want to come or stay here to begin with otherwise they would be just as likely to go to iran, saudi arabia or poland wouldnt they? But they ARENT

Our sense of humour for one thing tho is quite typically “british” and has constantly been missunderstood/admited/hated but other cultures that dont share it for decades maybe longer

Infact if you want to see what other cultures perception of british culture is its clearly shown in other cultures parodies of the brits and we feature frequently in stereotypical roles and to a large extent milk those perceptions ourself in humour

And thats one of the big aspects of british culture, we can not only laugh at ourselves, but as a rule we can laugh with other people laughing at us and take the humour as its intended, as humour

Try telling a mulsim joke to a muslim, polish joke to an pole, german joke to a kraut and see how many of them laugh “with” you at themselves

And as trivial as humour might seem, its a very influential facet to a person and a nations disposition and outlook.

Our troops also have a reputation, as does our military in general for not only being some of the most efficiant fighting forces on the planet but also for their ability on average to be effective peacekeepers, social ambassadors and able to strike a good balance between firm and amenable which again is a reflection on our culture as a whole that leaves many other equally white european forces less effective and less amenable in a peace keeping role

Aside from that, and more superficially, we ARE like it or not a white christian founded country, not an islamic one. We dont and havent for a very long time sought to stop or alter anyone elses religious practices on our soil unlike many of those religions do when they have their own soil

It IS part of our culture and heritage, as is things like st georges day, christmas, easter and countless other social rituals to christians, agnostics and athiests alike and yet bar easter for the moment, the other two HAVE already been under “multicultural”pressure to be renamed, toned down or just stopped

Thats not social evolution because its forced, its not “maturation” because its not by choice or apathy. and the pressure for those things to be altered IS as a direct resuilt of immigration and immigrants

If we were REALLY going to be more multicultural then perhaps we should show each non indigenous culture the same level of tolerance and acceptance they would and do show ours when we visit their soil eh?

But we’re better than that, british CULTURE is better than that, far far better than that

[ubermik]

@slayer wrote:

@ubermik wrote:

Thats muslims for ya

Either you bend to what they want via peaceful means or they go for the non peaceful methods

Enoch Powell will one day be viewed as a visionary I reckon

They must have taken the lead from the US- if you dont do it our way, we’ll make ya

I think you will find they’ve been doing it just a tad longer than america has actually existed for actually

[ubermik]

Thats muslims for ya

Either you bend to what they want via peaceful means or they go for the non peaceful methods

Enoch Powell will one day be viewed as a visionary I reckon

[ubermik]

I really dont know why anyone is moaning about this, all you have is a pedestrian who was expecting everyone but himself to take responsibility for his own safety and a cyclist who wasnt driving responsibly as tho they are some priviledged class that everyone ELSE should watch out for

Cyclists dont have to pass any tests, they dont have to have their vehicles checked, they dont have to have insurance and they dont have anything to identify their vehicles if they cause or are involved in an accident so really theyre nothing more than pedestrians with wheels as are rollerskaters, babies in pushchairs, kids on skateboards and people in cripple carriages so the footpath IS the place for both them and their cycle lanes as far as I’m concerned

[ubermik]

@forumhostpb wrote:

I’ve never seen the enjoyment that some blokes get out of porking a totally pissed female.

Can you just imagine it>>> there you are playing “Ride a Cock Horse” and suddenly she vomits all over you. Yeah …. real nice huh?

Isnt vomitting during a blowjob just the oral version of an orgasm tho?

Its nailing an unconcious one that I dont understand

If I wanted to have sex with a woman who was as active as a corpse I’d have got married……

[ubermik]

As a society laws HAVE to be abided by otherwise you have anarchy and chaos if its deemed “ok” to only abide by laws you agree with

But there should be a process to ammend, remove or replace those laws

So I would defend a psychopaths right to petition for murder to be made legal, for them to state their case, voice their opinion and try to gain support even tho I wouldnt agree with their views

I wouldnt however agree with them practising murder while it was illegal, but IF they changed the law then that would also have to be accepted at that time and people would be eqyally entitled to try and change the law back

Homosexuality tho ISNT illegal now, so as I said to begin with they arent a good comarison for obvious reasons

Ghandi was a passive activist so I dont see the relevance really, mandela however was a terrorist so that might have been a better choice

Robin hood didnt live in times where there WAS a path for recourse and lobbying nor democracy, so again its not really a very good choice

And law and morality ARENT interchangeable, they are EFFECTIVELY interchangeable

Meaning that the law to some extent defines the acceptable legal limits of some aspects of morality that the majority (we would hope) felt necessary

But social views and morality change so laws also need the ability to change too so they can accomodate the social change

[ubermik]

@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

[ubermik]

And it doesnt mention if the boot will be big enough for their wife either :lol: :lol:

[Author]

Posts