If
one goes back in history a bit further than the joining of Scotland and
England/Wales, England didn't exist, it was a collection of kingdoms,
but I'm not demanding that I should therefore be separated from
Northerners etc (and I wouldn't want to be). Scotland wasn't always one
kingdom either. I don't get the obsession with an arbitrary division,
the UK is the entity we were all born into and it's not inherently
oppressive to be part of the same nation as people on the same island.
Pride in one's location to the extent of wanting to be rid of others is
really, really not helpful/progressive.
arbitrary division, really? But England and Scotland did exist when The Political Union was formed did they not?
So?
The division was dissolved centuries ago, as others have been, so yes
it is now arbitrary - you've not offered any reason to the contrary.
This is slightly like Brexiteers wanting imperial measures back "because
history", which is daft for them to want, but at
least they have experienced imperial measures so they're nostalgic. None
of us have been alive when Scotland and England were separate, it's not
as though England has just invaded is ruling over Scotland - and
Scottish people get significantly more money per head from government
spending.
you
get what your Parliament votes for then, I'm alright and happy Jack
with The Corrupt Westminster Parliament, its not a Political Union
anyone is free to leave just like we left the EU, What was wrong with us
being in the EU all living together happily? The
Scottish people didn't vote for Brexit either but because England holds
all the cards both by population and Constituencies , Scotland Wales
and NI always get what England votes for . That is not an Equal Political Union nor particularly democratic.
English seats in Parliament 535
Scottish Seats 59 oh and they want to reduce that number.
Aso
Scots are not demanding they leave they are just wanting another vote
on it , which should not really be a problem ina true Democracy.
The
Uk is a Feudal State with a One Party Two Colour system of Governance
and your choices of elected representative is strictly controlled by
that ONE PARTYwhich is Privately Owned and controlled.
Again
you've not given a reason that border between Scotland and England
should be a division into independent nations. What you've done is to
imply that a Scottish voter matters more than an English voter. Unless
Scottish MPs are currently disproportionately few
per citizen as compared to the rest of parliament, why on Earth do you
think that Scotland is under represented? In fact it is vastly over
represented, the SNP gets to platform Ian Blackford and others in the
Commons and in maninstr media constantly (which I'm not opposed to, most
of their views on other issues are sensible). London has far more
people but we don't get that representation (I'm not saying that we
should). It's people that matter, yet you brush past the word
"population" like it's insignificant, as though nationalism matters more
than humanity.
"Scotland didn't want Brexit"? It is comprised of individuals who voted -
in different ways - and the rest of the UK also is comprised of
individuals who voted in different ways, and across the UK, which
Scotland is a part of, each vote is of equal value. London mostly voted
to remain, but regionalism is irrelevant, it's people who matter and
every citizen is equal.
"Feudal"? When Scottish people get far more money per capita in go spending?
Before Daniel found out that Lee is 18, he implied to Izzie that she should use protection. Of course she should *if* she's doing what Daniel believes, but surely if he thinks she's having sex he has a responsibility (irrespective of the boy's age) to try to stop her? Or at least to *carefully* warn her against it?
She's below the age of consent. He effectively endorsed breaking the law - or, more importantly, arguably endorsed what could be considered child abuse. The age of consent exists to protect very young people from doing things that they may be psychologically unready for - condoms aren't the only issue.
IMO, in general, young people should be *encouraged* (though not dictated to) to wait, rather than be led by hormones or cultural/peer pressure, for the sake of their emotional well-being (whilst also receiving plenty of information about safety, and absolutely not being shamed)
But if they are going to have sex wouldn't you rather protection than any stis or even pregnancy 
honestly Daniel knows what he was like as a teen he's being a sensible parent As
I made very clear, of course they should use protection *if* they do
it. But she should also be caringly, tactfully encouraged not to at the
very least, especially since she's underage.
I
find thought that their 15 year old child was going to attempt driving,
one wouldn't just say "wear a seat belt". One would tell them to wear a
seat belt if they go ahead, but one would also urge them not to do so.
Sending the message that it's OK so long as one uses protection is not
caring for their best interests.
Will young people end up being charged more because, ultimately, of the xenophobia of some older people?
After
William Wilberforce had fought slavery, he fought against the lottery,
because gambling ultimately preys on disadvantaged people
I absolutely disagree with him being charged, and it's not necessarily "hate" to believe that God knows best about sexuality.
But
what did the street preacher think he'd achieve? And why focus on one
sin, when we all sin and all need the forgiveness Jesus makes possible?
Our fellow Brits need to hear The Gospel, and *why* we believe that it's
actually *true*, going on about sexuality with people who don't even
believe is not helpful (and makes one wonder, is the preacher conscious
enough of his own need for forgiveness through Christ? As Christians we
should be more aware of the grace we've received and thus be humbled and
empathetic)
"I
charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall
judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but
after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having
itching ears;
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry."
If he spoke out about homosexuality, he was *preaching the Word*. Isn't that right? Of course it is
"The
Word" is The Gospel, that is that we have *all* sinned, and thus
separated ourselves from God, but are offered salvation through Jesus,
who died in our place and rose again (defeating death). Indeed sex
outside of heterosexual marriage is prohibited by
God, but simply criticising people for it is not The Word at all. And it
makes me wonder if the guy is truly aware of his own need of salvation.
He's absolutely not going to get anyone to repent simply by saying what
he did, all he's done is to reinforce disdain for Christianity.
Well,
how do you deal with your sinful nature, as a Christian? You repent for
your sin, and you try your best to not do it again. The verses I cited
from 2nd Timothy say that we should 'reprove, rebuke, exhort with all
longsuffering and doctrine'. We don't pat them on
the head, and tell them everything is good, when it's not. I thought we
were in the business of winning souls? How can you win a soul, when you
refuse to help them understand the changes they need to make in their
lives?
When did I say that we should "pat them on the head, and tell them everything is good"?
Saying
what he did absolutely will not contribute to *winning souls*, he's
instead made the women he spoke to and people reading about this more
unwilling to consider Christianity.
If
people don't already believe in God and His commands, why do you think
they'd take seriously having *their relationship* criticised? To them it
feels like the epitome of goodness in their lives. How, if you have a
spouse, do you think you'd feel in their situation? Would you accept
what the stranger criticising your marriage was saying and convert to
following his cause?
Deep down each person knows that they've done things wrong - but they won't recognise their relationship as one of those things.
How
I "deal with my own sinful nature" is to confess to God and ask His
forgiveness and help in becoming better. Because of my awareness of my
own sin and need of salvation through Jesus, I'm not going to start
picking on other people to their faces for something like this.
But, isn't that precisely why you should explain to people that they should repent to God, and turn from their sinful ways?
Don't
you want them to attain salvation? The alternative is pretty grim. I
would think that feeling uncomfortable is a small price for someone to
pay, if it brings someone out of darkness...but hey, that's just me, I
guess.
OF COURSE I want them to attain salvation, desperately, and of course feeling uncomfortable doesn't matter. But as I've been saying, what this man said in this instance is Not going to contribute to them attaining salvation at all, because they won't take him seriously, they'll just think that Christianity is bigoted and be less willing to listen. It seems like you haven't been reading what I've written (?)
We really, really need to tell people about Jesus, who loves them in spite of their sin - and we must aim to emulate Him in our conversations. Think, for example, about how He spoke to the woman at the well, and the woman caught in adultery - like the women this preacher spoke to, they had been breaking God's law RE sex, but His approach was entirely different to that of this preacher
He
also seemed to link the decline in people identity as Christians to the
increase in diversity, which was clear evidence of his foolishness.
He's incredibly ignorant if he doesn't know that white Brits are less
Christian than some other ethnicities. Ethnic diversity is *slowing* the
decline of Christianity in Britain. Anyone who genuinely loves Jesus is
infinitely more interested in beliefs than skin tones
Indeed
many values we hold as standard are in fact rooted in Christianity. But
ultimately Christianity is to choose to follow Jesus, it's not a matter
of heritage nor a feature of a country. Most Brits aren't interested in
Him - and don't know about the reasons to conclude that God and the
resurrection are realities.
I
absolutely get your point, but how are you defining religion? For me
following Jesus (who commands us to love others, including those from
elsewhere, though GBeebies wouldn't know) is the most important thing in
my life - and it means I feel closer to many people of colour than I do
to many other white Brits
Christianity
has long been followed by only a small minority, but many people have
referred to themselves as Christian because they feel like that's the
British thing to do. What's changed most is that slightly fewer people
now do that.
Christianity is
a
somewhat non white British thing now, in that most white Brits ignore
it but there are thriving congregations of other backgrounds.
Most
Brits aren't aware of the reasons for concluding Christianity to be
true, people mistakenly presume that it's just superstition.
I was Christian but in 2020 months converted to Judaism
Interesting. Do you want to explain? (not that it's something that needs defending or justifying, obviously, I'm just curious)
Jews
have never made me feel bad about myself. Christians told me I was
going to hell. Jews told me god makes no errors and I’m beautiful as I
was made in his image. See the difference.
Those
are complicated topics, but it sounds as though they were not actually
well enough aware of what Jesus taught. I'm so sorry if you've been
hurt. Personally I'd urge you to form a view of Jesus Himself (instead
of the actions/attitudes of other people who aren't emulating Him) and
what He said and did. In a parallel to the situation today, He
repeatedly argued with people who claimed to be religious but weren't
following God's commands (particularly about helping others) and warned
about some people in the future who'd claim to be of Him yet not be. But
obviously what you do or believe is none of my business whatsoever, so
massive apologies for sounding so interfering and patronising!
Best wishes on your belief journey
Interesting
how Sunak accuses Starmer of disrespecting his (Sunak's) parents by
wanting to end tax emeption for private schools. Sunak disrespects his
parents by allowing his party and Home Secretary to fuel anti migrant
hatred
Tory
Aid cuts have already stopped scores of children from being able to
attend school at all, and they're here pretending it's some tragedy that
elitist institutions that contribute to division might no longer be
free to dodge tax?
Descendants of slaves should each receive more than $200,000 (£164,000) People
should receive additional support if they are in poverty because of
such injustices, but not compensation purely on the basis of things
their ancestors went through.
Giving compensation for a wrong to people who weren't the victims of that wrong
doesn't
make sense - and the implication that doing so "repairs" the
immeasurable evil suffered by now deceased enslaved people seems to
disrespect those victims, their suffering cannot be undone.
But
there are statistically demonstrable injustices faced by many Black
Americans, and these need addressing. Though there are also horrendous
injustices faced by people elsewhere in our world because of colonialism
by the West (from which we unjustly benefit), and these problems need
addressing too.
It's
a problem that a large proportion of the Overseas Aid budget - that
should be helping famine victims etc - is being spent on British hotels
for *some* who don't *need* to come.
But
there really, really needs to be separate funding for, and reform of,
the immigration system so that those in need can be supported and so
that those able to can work.
I've
seen so many people defending Qatar's leadership, or Putin, on the
basis of evil by "the West" (which is in itself an oversimplification,
in that the citizens and leaders of the West are not the same as one
another - most of us hate what some of our leaders have done elsewhere
in the world). It's not rational. Evil in one place doesn't mean that
what's going on in another place cannot be evil. Greed and brutality are
flaws of the human species, not limited to one region of the Globe.
we
will only believe that you guys hate what your government is doing to
other countries only when yourl start pointing it out and shouting about
it the same way you guys are doing on Qata
In all seriousness, can you recommend effective ways to do so? I note that you've used present tense, would you please clarify?
Qatar has a lot of media attention ATM because of the specific event - *right now* it's on screen anyway,
because football is our national religion.
The
crusaders were misguided (claiming to be Christian but behaving in an
unChristlike way) and these guys are too. Though obviously, I hope
they're released.
They
should be *allowed* to. But it seems like an attempt to score points -
Kane has over £40million - if he cares about social justice, why doesn't
he give a chunk of it to the exploited labourers who built the stadiums
and their bereaved families?
It's
human sacrifice for the religion of football. Grown men will get
insanely emotional about a ball going into a net and not care
particularly that unimaginable suffering has been endured by labourers
and their bereaved families. Our culture is mad.
How many does the West Kill every year ? Hypocrites..
We
aren't making those decisions. Indeed some of our leaders have done
utterly evil things and we should criticise them as well - many of us
do. And we should give and campaign to support the world's most
disadvantaged people. But
it's irrational to blame
all of the people of one land mass for the actions of a few there, and 2
wrongs don't make a right so the Qatar leadership is deserving of
criticism irrespective of what others have done.
so are the Qatari citizens making decisions.
That's
why I call you guys hypocrites. You are quick to distancing yourselves
from the evil of your governments buy you want bundle everyone else ..
If we
are to go by the action of your leaders then the West too must not host
the world cup or any world events. Why criticise Qatar and forget to
clean your backyards?
No,
the Qatari citizens aren't making the decisions, and we aren't blaming
them. A general problem is that whole countries are often referred to as
single entities, this always happens in discussion of news and history
and I get annoyed by it.
A
difference with events happening here is that there aren't thousands of
deaths *in the process of preparing the events*. But IMO, in all
seriousness, most of the money should be taken from our football
industry and used to help those living in poverty elsewhere in our world
because of the ripple effects of colonialism.
Omg,
stop attacking the country, just focus on your recession, Qataris are
the richest people in the world, mind your own business.
It's everyone's business, it's human exploitation that needs exposing. That Qatar is rich is the very opposite of an excuse.They
got offered better opportunities than they had in their countries, why
don’t you criticise their cor
Why
do you think that they're home countries are more corrupt? They're
poorer because they don't have as much oil as Qatar, that doesn't mean
that that they're necessarily as corrupt. It's irrelevant any way,
because 2 wrongs don't make a right, so e even if their home countries
are as corrupt it doesn't make Qatar's leadership any less worthy of
criticismrupted countries instead? At the end of the
day, they are having better wages
Ridiculous,
they made the whole thing political. Completely took the fun away What a
shame for the millions of families and children that had too put up
with Gary linekers bias opinions . We are just as bad as oppressive
regimes telling people what they can watch with this lefty censorship...
You
think it's "bias" to oppose labourers being worked to death? You're
more worried about "families and children" not seeing a particular
parade on broadcast TV (I'll bet it's available to watch online anyway)
than about families and children who've lost loved
ones? You think that not seeing a ceremony on broadcast TV is "just as
bad" as being imprisoned (as political dissidents in oppressive regimes
are)?
It's
the opposite of woke by definition, but this channel is completely
obsessed with making itself look stupid by misusing the word
Indeed
this is a daft thing for him to say - but I also find it annoying how
he constantly refers to anything he disagrees with as "the Left" and
ignorantly presumes that everyone anywhere on the Left agrees about
everything. He, like some others in the media (particularly GBeebies
here in Britain) find the most controversial examples they can of
progressivism, particularly things relating to the LGBT community, and
labels it as "the Left", knowing his followers will be angry and then be
less willing to listen to ideas about fairer wealth distribution or
public services because "the Left" (whilst also scapegoating all LGBT
people)
What a marvellous piece of evidence that most GBeebies fans are lacking basic empathy this post is
she didn't felt empathy for the vulnerable british girls being raped and used like rag dolls by the filth of a certain religion.Couldn't give a rat about this vile human.
According
to what evidence? Do tell, I see certain Right wingers talking about
this constantly yet have never seen any evidence for their assertions.
in order for you to trool this page on daily basis, you must have an empty sad life.
I
follow media outlets across the spectrum so that I can see different
perspectives, understand other people better and avoid echo chambers -
do you not?
I'm so sorry that you think a person can't have time in their life for (following
current affairs on) Facebook, and also many other things (do you want me to detail my life?) - that is sad.
I
see that you've no evidence to present supporting your assertion that
Jess Phillips doesn't care about abuse victims, so thankyou for clearing
that up.
In
theory maybe, but in reality it costs the tax payer a lot to keep
someone in jail, so IMO most who aren't dangerous should have massive
fines and community sentence orders instead. And being in jail can
contribute to the likelihood of reoffending, meaning more crime victims -
Sunak needs to look at data as to what's most effective for actually
reducing crime rather than trying to appeal to public anger.
My
experience is that the supposed systems for getting those of us with
difficulties into work have been useless. The DWP should pair people up
with roles we can do well in spite of disabilities - which can be
difficult to find on jobs sites - it seems that it's failing to do that
right now (though some of the people I've met who work in it are lovely
people).
Sorry,
but I'm still slightly confused about the angger over this - isn't it right that
employers should pay people well enough rather than using people from
elsewhere because they'll work for lower salaries? It's not the same as
saying that we should take in fewer refugees, *that* would be
outrageous. IMO we need to also think more about the rest of the world -
is it not wrong to be, for instance, actively reducing the number of
nurses in countries where healthcare provision is far less here?
I presume I'm missing something (?)....
Macron calls for a “single global order”
What's
meant by "highly religious"? The Bible repeatedly commands us to care
for the poor, specifically including those from elsewhere (in contrast
to sentiments at the time), so we absolutely must oppose climate change
as it's harming and threatening the world's poorest people.
He
said that, under his rule, there'd been no wars for "decades and
decades". And he blames China for losing in 2020. He still doesn't grasp
climate change. And so much more of what he said made no sense.
I
find it particularly odd that some Americans who *claim* to be
Christian are massive Trump fans, when his attitudes are always entirely
the opposite of what Jesus taught.
for example?
An
example of what? Trump defying Jesus' teaching? Jesus told us to love
our enemies, Trump just makes angry, childish remarks. Jesus taught us
to be humble, Trump brags obsessively. Jesus said that we should love
our neighbours from elsewhere, Trump demonises people fleeing gang warfare in Central America and tears their families apart. bit hypocritical when Biden is funding Ukraine to fight an enemy
Funding
a country to defend itself against a nutter who's slaughtering
civilians is not the same as Trump obsessively making petty remarks
about critics and opponents because his pride is hurt.
you said "jesus told us to love our enemy" make your mind up, either love putin or you don't even follow what jesus says
Loving Putin does not mean allowing him to massacre civilians. That wouldn't be loving to them.
You judgmental fool. What do you mean people who 'CLAIM' to be a Christian.You are not only judgemental, you are also ignorant. For Christians as well, Jerusalem is also the eternal capital of Israel.
That's
interesting. You've told me off for supposedly judging and being
ignorant, yet at the same time you've called me a fool, and ignored
Jesus teaching not to do so. And you still haven't answered the
questions.
What do you mean by "judging"? What I mean is what
I
wrote, people who claim to be Christian. Anyone can claim to be
anything. Stating that they claim it doesn't mean that I believe that
all of them are wrong to do so, but also claiming to be something does
not mean that one actually is what they've claimed - whether or not a
person is something depends on the definition of the term. A Christian
is a person who is genuinely committed to (and desiring to) follow
Christ, yet our society has long misused the word for cultural reasons.
Jesus repeatedly stated that some people who assert they're religious,
or who in the future would claim to be in Him, are wrong. Jesus also
said that we can understand things/people by their fruit - the
words/attitudes of Trump show a clear lack of the fruits of the spirit,
so I would expect those keen to follow Jesus' teaching to understand him
as such rather than idolising him as some do.
Note
that he is a member of the Conservative party, which is why I voted
against him when he ran for mayor a few years ago. Obviously it's great
that he's criticising climate change deniers, but the stupid misuse of
"woke" needs criticising too. Woke refers to
awareness. If people want to criticise other statements /ideas by
certain progressives, they should use sensible vocabulary.
your conservatives are equal to our liberals in the US
I
think that depends on which of them you're talking about. They each -
like every one - have their own sets of views. Our Home Secretary
recently referred to migrants as "an invasion".they
don't seem to be as crazy as our magats, House Freedom Causus, Election
Deniers, Evangelical Christian taliban who want to turn our country
into The Handmaid's Tale.
I was told by a woman who was born and grew up in Germany that their conservative party was equal to Bernie Sanders.
"evangelical"
is an entirely misused word on your side of the pond (as is "Christian"
to some extent though it seems that some people are aware of its
misuse). I find it personally very frustrating.
IMO, Britain has a tradition of
restraint
that contributes to many people in power coming across as
well-mannered, it can mask the damage that they actually do. America has
a very different history, and rebelling - not wrongly - is foundational
to the USA's existence.
It’s changed. They are now in lock step with American Republicans. Brexit changed everything.
I
think Brexit has given racists confidence. But certain parts of the
media have contributed too. I'm worried that GBeebies and TalkTV, for
instance, are having an impact.
From France’s perspective, the real migration crisis lies elsewhere
It's
ironic that it's referred to as a "crisis", when the actual crises are
the situations that some of these people are fleeing (not all of them, I
know)
The government
should have decent, cost-efficient facilities for them, and far faster
processing to determine which are fleeing horrendous poverty or
conflict, as well as to direct people to jobs and therapy when required.
And the government needs to stop using Overseas Aid to fund this, it
must be funded separately.
to deport
Given
your surname, you clearly came here or have family who did - why,
according to *your* logic, should you be here whilst others should all
"be deported"?
and
here back on planet earth, what about the jobless and homeless that we
already have in the UK?? There isn't much poverty or conflict in
Albania!!!!
The majority don't come from Albania. (But why do you think there isn't poverty there?)
There's a need for agricultural workers here, food is rotting in fields.
well
depends what economic country you are referring between!!! Just because
a person can't afford a new IPhone doesn't make them poor!!! As for
working in the fields why don't the young of the UK do it, or is it
below their selfish worth??
Good
grief, when did I say that someone is poor if they can't afford a new
iPhone? This stupid publication was moaning recently about people not
having holidays or meals out, I believe strongly in frugality.
I don't know enough about why
people
here don't work in fields, but that doesn't change the fact that there
are many migrants willing to do it. Many people don't live near enough,
and won't move because it would be unaffordable, impractical and too
grim to move away from family - whereas migrants can more easily go
anywhere. Ultimately if migrants take their earnings home with them,
they can buy them a decent standard of living, whereas here the amount
isn't enough for a young person to keep a roof over their head.
so
you want to use the migrants as slave labour because they'll live
anywhere, unlike kids in the UK who want to live off mommy and daddy!
No(?)
As I explained, the salaries are worth more to them, are you not able
to understand that? Young people are not simply "living off mommy and
daddy" (mommy? This is Britain not America), house prices are now many
times more in relation to salaries than they were, intergenerational
living makes sense (better to pay rent to parents and do chores than to
line landlords' pockets) - but it's not just about living in the same
house as parents, living near family and friends is important.
Please stop using the word ‘skinny’. It’s incredibly offensive.
Why is it offensive?
It’s usually used as a criticism, or an insult. It’s never complimentary
I've certainly heard it used positively. And clearly it's an attribute that's largely considered good in our culture.
to be honest, I’ve never had it used in a positive way towards me It means ‘emaciated’, and I really don’t think that’s culturally good, for anyone
I think
it’s easy to forget that people often speak from their own lived
experiences when commenting on threads such as these, and for a lot of
people, it feels offensive
I'm sorry that you've felt offended.
Of
course it's not "good" that the standard is such, but it is used as a
compliment, and an aspiration. Some of us have felt such a need to be
skinny we've almost killed ourselves in the process (and have seen
others die).
The
issue is not the threat to ourselves, nor protecting general creation,
it's that other human beings are suffering immensely. The OT, the words
of Jesus, and the Holy Spirit make us want to help them.
I would say, look much closer at the computer modelling. The
numbers are a fabrication based entirely on highly selective data. In
1952 the earth was home to 2.7 Billion people. In 2022 it is home to 8
billion people. This is the single biggest pressure on earth but again and again remains the one that the tree huggers consistently fail to highlight.
But
human beings are the whole point point of the planet. But tree huggers
do recognise population size, and have fewer children. The Global
population is forecast to peak later this century and then decline, as
access to contraception becomes ubiquitous.
Thousands more NHS workers being balloted for strike action, Unite union saysSome
doctors and NHS bosses get 6 figure salaries. Surely they should be
paid less so that nurses - who now have to do various tasks that were
previously done by doctors - and carers can receive more than they do
now?
Also, agencies and
private healthcare should be restricted, they shouldn't be allowed to
steal NHS staff or to charge the NHS so much.
So
sad for the family.but this is getting worse the more people they let
in to this country the more of us will die.we need to start looking
after our own now it's ridiculous
How many of them are in hospitals? They fitter and healthier than many Brits. And plenty of migrants work hard in our services.
What's
changed is there are far more elderly people, and inadequate systems
for supporting them. There's also more obesity contributing to various
illnesses
TikTok star reveals how you can feed your family for £1 a head
Who
didn't know that pasta and potatoes are cheap? There are plenty of
meals that can be made for £1 per serving or less - the issue, IMO, is
that some people have horrendous housing costs.
NB,
one can fund many meals for £1 for a person elsewhere in the world
who's literally starving (who don't have food banks etc), I think that's
an exciting deal
IMO
What's needed is an accurate and effective process for determining what
is actually harmful as opposed to simply being potentially offensive.
that’s censorship
Sure,
but censorship of certain material could be necessary to, for instance,
prevent terrorism. That's why there needs to be a good system in place
for working out what's genuinely dangerous
that’s
already in place to certain degree… But we’ve gone way too far at this
point, and continuing along this trend will be dangerous territory
I
absolutely get the concern, though I feel we've seen more actual danger
from forces that have used the internet and not been censored. The
Capitol riots, ISIS and various other terrorists - as well as
misinformation about medicine - demonstrate how real harm, fuelled online*, can be done.
(*Obviously I'm not opposed to the internet itself)
Still allows bias. Who gets to decide?
Experts
who are trained in making the distinction? We know that the Internet
has been used to radicalise terrorists, and to push people to suicide -
some things aren't simply a matter of free speech
No public money should be spent on things like this.
on things like what?
Live entertainment of any genre
Nonsense.
Why?
It's money taken largely from working people who aren't benefitting. It
should be spent on the NHS (or better still, IMO, on overseas Aid -
people are starg to death, how could we think that live entertainment is
more important). It could even be spent on
increasing access to entertainment and culture for lots of people by
building broadband infrastructure more quickly. In reality it's a
stupidly inefficient use of money - £195 of tax payer's money is spent
for *each* opera goer, that's far more than a whole year of the TV
license for a household (or, in relation to Aid, more than enough to
feed a starving child for the year), going on one evening out that
mostly only rich people take advantage of.
how
odd. Live entertainment (whether or not you think Grand Opera is a wise
way to spend the money) has sustained people and societies for
centuries. Get over yourself.
In
previous centuries people didn't have television and the Internet. We
have an endless array of culture and entertainment and culture without
the need for live entertainment. But if people want to go to it, they
should pay, not the tax payer.
Are you honestly saying we need live entertainment to "sustain" ourselves?
who
do you think creates tv programmes? It’s people who learned their craft
through performing live. Stop talking about something you you have no
experience of - you’re making a fool of yourself.
People create TV having *studied* the arts. Opera *performances*, costing the tax payer £200per ticket, are not required.
But
why don't we talk more about the lasting ripple effects in those
countries? It's obviously right that we call for compassion for migrants
/refugees but we're largely ignoring the world's very poorest people
(many of whom are in former European colonies,
including British). And Western banks and corporations are continuing to
exploit less wealthy countries, colonialism 2.0. And what are you doing for them?
Not
enough, it's hard to know what I can do on my own. I'm constantly
trying to find opportunities to talk about Global poverty on LBC and
such like; obviously I contact my MP (who replies in detail) regularly
and sometimes the government (but I doubt the latter reads - nor has
staff read - messages from the public at all); and of course I sign and
share petitions etc (but I don't imagine that does much). I have sponsor
children and another direct debit to an overseas Aid organisation, and I
make random additional, larger donations (saving these for when there
are matching opportunities) - I'm eager to donate more but have been
struggling with getting much work due to health issues (obviously I live
as cheaply as I can, generally avoiding spending on myself aside from
supermarket food - no takeaways, restaurants, socialising, holidays,
memberships etc - and getting what I wear, as well as other things like
my phone, from Oxfam). I'm packing boxes of gifts ATM to go to kids in
developing countries, so my room looks like a warehouse
Previously I undertook various fundraising activities, but it became increasingly difficult to be effective.
Do you have any suggestions?
Perhaps if you grasped what was written . It is about Britain , and should include the U.S. invading these countries.
What have I failed to grasp?
Your
comment was to imply that we must look after ourselves , and former
colonies ... we have all been victims of
Globalism , Colonialism , but while this is true , we have also had to
pay for the west to illegally invade and rape these
other countries . We are victims . While my father was a holocaust
survivor , my mothers side are MacRaighnaill`s . The first of the Irish
clans to be chased off their lands by the English . We are from the
north of Ireland , Armagh. The Irish know full well about Colonialism .
As a class , because it is a class war that has been waged against us
for many many years
No,
my comment was absolutely not to imply that we must look after
ourselves. My comment was that general in our cultute/politics/media, we
(Inc on the Left) pay far too little attention to the very most
disadvantaged people. I'm honestly still not clear what point you're trying to make, I never disputed class injustice, imperialism by the US etc.
I'm
so sorry that your family experienced those horrors. But surely you
aren't suggesting that you having that in your family history is similar
to people right now starving to death(?)
I
agree with him that our country's history of involvement with slavery
is a massive issue, but throwing eggs won't help. Money made through
slavery should be traced and donated to organisations fighting modern
slavery, but egg throwing won't win anyone over.
totally agree, let's start with the royal family
Certainly.
Though I sometimes wonder if, because they're (the RF) so obvious,
other super rich people and corporations who've benefitted from
injustice don't get enough scrutiny. But I'm finding it flipping odd
seeing so many people fawning over the monarchy these days.
There's
not been enough coverage of this. It's as though our society thinks
that restrictions on sex* are worse than people being forced to labour
to death.
*(I am of
course not condoning Qatar's position on this issue at all, just noting
how migrant worker abuse and death have been discussed so much less)
Failing
to teach British history would deprive students of appreciating how
many things still in use today that we invented and discovered.. I give
you Steohenson, Newton, Bacon, Parsons, Hawking, Turing, whittle and the
holy bible of engineers Brunel and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
It's
because of knowing more about history that people dislike Churchill.
What on Earth do you mean by "the holy bible of engineers"?
exactly
that, Brunel was arguably the greatest and most dedicated engineer
ever. His projects spanned tunnelling, marine vessels and railways with
their supporting infrastructure. you don't know much about Churchill do you?
"the
holy Bible of"??? Are you unaware that The Bible is a book (or
collection of books/texts and the word of God for those of us who are
Christian)
What exactly is your point RE Churchill?
Would you have preferred Hitler win the war?
Of
course not, but why are you presuming that he would have? The war
wasn't won by Churchill, it was won by valiant people giving their lives
to fight and by pioneers like Turing. Churchill had views very much
like Hitler's, and millions of people starved to death as a result. If
Churchill had been so crucial in winning the war the British population
wouldn't have voted him out straight afterwards.
If
bombs were being dropped on your families heads from a foreign land
would you have supported the man put into power the rally against it
happening? Or maybe you would have just criticized the man? You weren't
around at that time were you! Churchill lost his next election because of socialists like yourself but won the next election didn't he!..
If
I were alive in the war, I'd have done what I could irrespective of the
PM. Wanting Hitler defeated (or, today, being glad that he was
defeated) doesn't mean that one needs to venerate Churchill.
Simply saying "socialists" doesn't address
the reality that those people who had far more understanding of the war than you or I didn't see him as a great heroic leader.
You weren't though were you. Pure arrogance
That
I wasn't there doesn't change what I said, that venerating Churchill is
not necessary. And it's not "arrogance", I haven't claimed anything
good about myself - you *asked* what I'd do, it's hilarious that you'd
then respond to my answer as you have.
Do
you realise that socialists were also considered the enemy during WW2
who were responsible for attacking many British manufacturers including
steel and many others! I bet you would have also been one of those
traitors with your warped thinking! Britain would have lost the war without the great Winston Churchill.
Why
are you talking about socialists? How are you even defining socialists?
You seem to presume I am one, but I never said that. And are you
unaware that the Red army was massively helpful in defeating Hitler?
What is "warped" about "my
thinking", and what evidence do you have that I'd "be a traitor"? You're plainly just making things up.
Good
for her, seriously. If blokes won't wait they're - for her at least -
not worth it. Contrary to cultural presumptions, sex isn't necessary for
enjoying life, so there's no problem with her waiting. Let's stop
feeding the lie that men are entitled to women's bodies.
He
had said that he might use the money he has to fight world hunger - and
there are people in our world right now literally starving to death,
which is indescribably torturous - instead he's making people jobless
and threatening to reduce everyone's ability to know what's true.
lol
you live in the developed world and if you're earning about 30-4 K a
year that puts you on the top 10% by world standards and I'll bet you're
not sacrificing a big portion of your privilege to help the food
distribution problem.
I'm
not earning anywhere near 30k. And I do spend a significant % of my
income on helping people in the poorest countries, do you need me to go
into detail about my finances?
Has
she not just admitted that the norms instilled by the sexual revolution
are wrong? "Mercy" (which is not a reasonable description of abortion)
is only needed when an immoral or mistaken action has been carried out.
It's not the same, and you know it.
100% the same your irrational fear of people that are different than you is not letting you see that though
What about my comment indicates *fear*? Are you prejudging?
Would
you tell a drag queen that they're 100% the same as Mrs Doubtfire? To
say that things are exactly the same is the opposite of a smart take, it
ignores the nuances and artistry of both. In fact the appearances, aims
and personas are entirely different.
The only similarity is dressing up as women - do you think that all women are "100% the same"?
because
anyone who has a problem with people of a different sexualality, race,
religion always comes from a place of a fear. Hemophobia, Racism and any
type of hatred always stems from fear. Hell there are conservatives
that have irrational fears of big cities they have never been to. I've
spent plenty of time arguing with Right wingers who hate my city. But
you've ignored what I've actually written and are instead projecting and
presuming (prejudging... prejudice).
All I said initially was that drag and Mrs Doubtfire
aren't
the same, I didn't even say that I "have a problem" with drag. And
objecting to drag is not "having a problem" with people of different
groups, drag isn't an ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation, it's a
subculture or performance art style (one that's entirely unlike a man
wearing facial prosthetics and old clothes to appear as a nanny so that
he can spend time with his children). Drag is a form of entertainment,
and people disliking a form of entertainment are not necessarily afraid.
Personally, I find drag very offensive - it's fairly like Blackface
(though I'm certainly not imagining that as a woman I experience the
oppression that Black folk in the era of Blackface did) - it's a
caricature that's making a joke of women. There's also misogyny in the
culture, such as the use of the the word "fishy", and some grossly
objectifying names and performances that perpetuate the notion that
women are sex objects. Many parents are concerned about the sexual
nature of plenty of drag culture, I don't know why you think that they
shouldn't be able to protect their children from this.
That
the Tories keep bringing up Corbyn shows both how scared they are of
his popularity and opposition to their greed; and that they have no
arguments against Starmer.
I'm sure the Tories would love him back. Absolute guarantee of winning the next election.
What are you basing that assertion on?
His track record. He led the Party to the worst election result for 90 years. 50 Labour MPs lost their seats.
That's
not a good metric. The Tories won a number of seats that was very much
out of proportion with their share of the votes, because of FPTP.
Meanwhile the SNP hoovered up votes that Labour used to win in Scotland,
because of issues like Independence or Brexit, not Corbyn.
And
plainly, many people - especially in the Red Wall - voted Tory to get
Brexit out of the way, and or because they like BoJo's clown act.
In
the 2017 election (ie, pre BoJo), Corbyn presided over a significant
increase in Labour's vote share, and that 40% share of the votes is much
higher than the 35.2% share that Blair won in his last election (2005).
Polling shows that Corbyn's policies are popular.
Since
he's keen to learn from God's guidance, he really ought to take some
time to look at God's views on Jews (that is to say, God loves them and
Jesus was one) and amend his opinions accordingly.
How
do we define moral responsibilities when we have such different
worldviews? (within the British population that is) I feel instinctively
that we should want to help people elsewhere in the greatest need, and I
believe this all the more because I believe that God created those
people in need and He commands us to help - but many people don't share
these feelings and beliefs.
Good question - but obviously the answer is that one can't, other than with God.
Though
surely it applies to various public figures? IMO, though scripture says
that we still struggle with sin after choosing to follow Jesus, the
extent of boasting from certain celebrities who are supposedly Christian
makes me wonder if they really are (though obviously, it's none of my
business)
Talent doesn't arrive in a rubber boat! Get a grip!
What
exactly are you basing that assertion on? Why do you think that the
human beings you refer to are different from other human beings?
for
a start almost all of them follow a 3rd world religious cult that puts
women and children in danger here, anyone educated wanting to truly
enter this country will do it legally via the correct channels and not
fund organised crime/terrorism.That
doesn't answer the question at all. Being born into an Islamic country
doesn't mean that human beings are fundamentally intrinsically different
and thus less statistically likely to have talent. And plainly, people
interpret the
religion they're born into
differently, hence, for example, protests in Iran ATM. Human beings are
individuals with our own sets of views and values, people are not all
the same as those they share a country with, as evidenced by arguments
we have here about everything.
And how precisely do people "do it legally"?
my
unit served in both Afghanistan and Iraq I’ve seen the way men behave
and treat women and children(boys & girls) and we have plenty of
evidence of the way they have carried on their behaviour toward white
girls in the U.K. if they were genuine then they would apply for visas just like every other country in the world does
Kudos
for your service. But again, you're irrationally lumping all of the
people of a region together, as though everyone in one place thinks and
behaves the same. Human beings do not all do exactly as their
neighbours. I had a non white person moan at me over pedophilia because
they found a large number of white paedophiles when they searched online
- and there are are indeed plenty of white paedophiles, but that
doesn't mean that you or I condone their behaviour nor are to blame for
it.
I
pray for all the Ladies that have come out to show interest in becoming
Prime Minister and i send them my support, I also send my respect and
appreciations to Lady Liz for the great work she did as the Prime
Minister
What
do you think was great about Liz Truss? NB, the "lady" Braverman said
recently that it's her "DREAM" to see migrants sent to Rwanda - grossly
offensive and to migrants and to Rwanda.
I do remember the issues of sending migrants start during Borris Johnson time and not Lady Liz
Oh
yes, I think he's awful too. I wasn't blaming Liz Truss specifically
for the migration issue, I wondered why you complimented her given the
absolute crises she's caused for our economy - not "great work". My
point about migration was that that Braverman (you expressed support for the "ladies") is plainly a horrible person.
What
I personally want DESPERATELY is for my country's leaders to care about
people elsewhere in our world, such as by restoring overseas Aid and
ensuring that it is better regulated so that it all reaches the world's
very poorest people.
Great.
But do we need tips? There are more than enough clothes to suit
anyone's taste available in charity shops (or thrift shops on your side
of the pond?) - where money spent also goes to a good cause (I buy from
Oxfam and feel seriously happy knowing that the money will help some of
the world's poorest people) - or on eBay. We need to end the absurd idea
some have that one should buy new clothes frequently, on the basis of
trends/seasons. What some garment workers endure is horrific.
Why
exactly do you think that British human beings should have a far higher
standard of living, whilst other human beings suffer hellish droughts,
famines and floods?
They're
an excuse for conservatives to distract from the economic policies are
making people's lives harder. (though I agree with the traditional
understanding of male/female myself)
In
what way are you distracted from economic strife when spiked says that
misogynistic sexual predators should not be granted access to female
only spaces because they lied about being a woman?Exactly. You’re not. Go back to The Guardian.
Why
would a woman vote for a party whose leader cannot define what a woman
is? And how does that detract from their awareness of their own personal
finances? It doesn’t.
Because
(and you've really just proven my point) there are infinitely more
important issues. What the government believes about the definition of a
woman has far less impact on most of our lives than issues like
mortgage rates, worker's rights, salaries, public
services etc. Also the Labour Party has very differing views on this
issue within it, and Starmer rightly mentioned biology when last asked
about this. We're never going to agree with all of the positions of any
party, we vote for the one whose positions on the most significant
issues are most in line with ours, refusing to vote Labour on the basis
of this topic whilst things get harder and harder for much of the
population, particularly women, is irrational.
When
the Tories cut Aid, they doomed many thousands of girls to miss out on
education, and many will now be pressured into marriage, even as
teenagers. Don't pretend that the Tories care about women and children.
The Pensions Triple Lock feels like it puts one age group - an age group who had far more
opportunity to buy a home and thus avoid the housing costs that take up
so much of people's salaries - above others.
It's an oxymoron. Nationalists - such as those who say "America first" - are not striving to emulate Christ.
If
I want “France first” or “Australia first” policies, I’m not really
seeking the good of my neighbor right next to me, am I? Not very
Christlike.
Oh
wow, this is Sunday school stuff - Jesus taught us that our neighbours
are those who need our help, specifically NOT those "right next to us",
see The Good Samaritan. I wasn't suggesting being “France first” or
“Australia first”, no nation should be "first", we should have concern
for the poor and oppressed - including those from elsewhere - asGod
tells us repeatedly.
I’m
talking about proximity, not tribe. The Good Samaritan was proximally
right next to the man from Jerusalem. Moreover, how would you think of
the Samaritan helping the man from Jerusalem if he had just passed by
three other Samaritans injured on the side of the
road? This is what “America first” means. Not “let other countries
suffer,” but “help the suffering here—the responsibility with which God
has specifically charged our governing officials—first; and certainly
don’t CREATE suffering here in the interest of helping another nation.”
But
the Samaritan *hadn't * walked past others. Jesus never said that it's
about proximity. He shocked His listeners by overturning their strong
view that their fellow Israelites were superior to Samaritans. And in
today's world, we don't need to be proximal to people to care about them, and US foreign policy has a monumental impact on the rest of the world.
I’m
not denying that, but Biblically, government’s God-given responsibility
is to its OWN people, and to neglect/harm its own people in favor of
globalist interests is wicked. If all governments around the world
adhered to that principle, needless wars would be nearly nonexistent.
"Biblically"
based on which verses exactly? And I wasn't suggesting "neglect". I
wonder what you mean by "Globalist", or why you think that there'd be
fewer wars if leaders were more nationalist, the opposite is true. And
my comment was not about leaders in the first place, lots of people are nationalists and it's not their job.
but
you are emulating Christ so well. Help me understand how voting for
Hilary was more Christian. Under Trump the world economy was doing well.
Good for all of us at the time.
I
didn't vote for Hilary, I'm British. But to vote for a politician
simply means thinking they're the least bad option on balance, not that
one agrees with all of their policies - and she plainly is less bad
than Trump.
those "Christians" died keeping the nazi's from possessing your country.
That's hilarious. If you believe that they were fighting to defend Europe, they *weren't* just putting themselves first.
It was nationalism that brought about Nazism (and for the record, America was just part of defeating Hitler)
the
thinking that “America first among nations” excludes “The LORD God
first among gods” is shallow. If you make a list starting with item
number one, how does that seem to imply that all other lists must start
with item number two? Or three? Or some other number?
You're
both putting words in my mouth and, it appears (?) ignoring the crucial
reality that all sorts of things can be false gods. I've seen plenty of
people treating their American identity like a religion.
Countries
should not be in lists. We'll feel some degree of warmth for the
country that we're from/in, but that's no excuse for wanting it to do
better than other countries, especially when you're in what's already
the richest country in the world. As Christians we're told to care for
the poor and voiceless - those are most of all the people in the world's
poorest countries.
Seriously,
your obsessive overuse of "Left" is daft. Do you not have a vocabulary?
Plenty of people are on the Left (not as defined by you) as Christians.
lol. Ok if you say they support abortion ok then
I didn't say that. then they are Christians who DO VOTE in support of it.
There
are a bunch of issues, and people have essentially only 2 options when
voting, so voting Democrat does not mean supporting abortion, it's just
weighing up the issues and picking the least bad choice. Trump is
incredibly unChristian, and the Bible tells us
repeatedly to help the poor, including people from elsewhere. Ultimately
various Right wing policies, such as some that oppose contraception,
will lead to more abortions.
yes
it actually does because by voting democrat you are voting for abortion
and a whole lot of other things that a Christian should not be
supporting.
Did you not understand my comment? Read it again.
"voting Democrat does not mean supporting abortion." Unless I read that incorrectly those are your words and they are wrong.
Indeed. And read the rest. Shall I presume that, given your logic, you voting for Trump means that you support grabbing women by the p****?
why
do people keep bringing up and off the cuff remark made 30 years ago?
He said it in jest. Yet the same people mad about it love Cardi B's Wet
Ass Pu$$# song and contributed millions to the 50 Shades of Grey
franchise.
"the
same people"? Which people exactly Only some people are fans of Cardi B
or 50 Shades of Grey, I've not personally listened to WAP or
read/watched 50 Shades - but those things are fundamentally very
different, because whilst they're gross they're entertainment about women choosing to do things, whereas Trump bragged about sexual assault.
also
keep in mind, had Trump ran as a Dem - you'd have never heard that
recording. You know why no one is mentioning it anymore? It was
illegally obtained without consent of either party. (In the 90s that was
a real no-no). he didn't brag about sexual assault. You sensitive children need to grow up. It was locker room jargon. AND you're in the UK. Worry about your own crap. Stay out of our business.
And?
Hypothesising about it not having been made public is irrelevant, it
was made public and you voted for him. If you insist that someone voting
Democrat means that they support abortion (it actually doesn't, as I've
explained everyone just has to choose the least bad of 2 options), by
the same logic you voting for Trump means you support sexual assault,
and many other awful, unChristian things about Trump.
He absolutely bragged, and it wasn't about a consensual situation.And your country influences our country and others massively, telling someone that something isn't their business is not a good argument.
"When you're a 'vegan' vegan, all life is equal. So a cow is akin to a human." We asked vegans to debunk the most common misconceptions about them
I
asked PETA (via their Blue tick Twitter account) if a statement they'd
shared about all animals being equal included ants, they replied that it
did. Fortunately the vegans I actually know personally are not like
this. As with other groups, don't lump all vegans together.
why does someone have to be the same as u for u not to exploit and kill then for your taste enjoyment
I
didn't say "someone has to be". But "someone" refers to a human, BTW,
you seem to be using it to refer to non human animals. I was mocking
PETA's view that ants are equal to other animals, you seem to be making
presumptions about my views on meat.
wow
that’s how much of a supremacist u r the dogs, whales, cat, pigs and
cows are are something not a someone. U r wrong. Just like u, they feel
pain, they have personalities, they have individual experiences, they
have family and are social, they are intelligent and can suffer, they are someone and u exploit and kill them for your selfish taste enjoyment
No,
I don't. For frick's sake. But yes humans are superior, we have far
more consciousness than animals - and again my comment was about ANTS.
so
might makes right? Isn’t that the same mentality to oppress women and
have human slaves and child abuse? I guess we have different values. If
someone is not same as me I don’t think it’s justified to kill them for
my own sensory pleasure such as taste
With
all due respect, you're making no sense. Clearly you want to evangelise
about veganism, but your comments aren't addressing what I've written. I
never mentioned *might*, are you even reading my comments? What I said
is that animals haven't the same level of consciousness.
Women/children/enslaved people are *not* less
conscious/aware/thinking/autonomous than powerful men (or are you
suggesting they are?)
I
absolutely never said that we should eat animals for taste, I don't
think that we should. People *don't* eat animals exclusively for taste
though, people eat animals for nutrition. It's because of nutrition that
we evolved a taste for meat, human beings only enjoy the taste because
it was necessary. Fortunately we now have many foodstuffs available -
but it is not easy to get all of the nutrients that we need from a vegan
diet, especially if one has particular conditions as I do. If it were
up to me, eating of mammals would end immediately, and more would be
done to make comparable alternatives available (protein and
micronutrient sources that are affordable and not packed with fat/carbs -
such options are currently lacking) so that poultry and fish
consumption could end too.
But why are you arguing with me? (don't answer that). I was talking about ANTS.
It's
inaccurate, over 60s are not elderly. Those who are elderly - who are
far older than 60 - should be respected and the word should not be
considered a pejorative. What's needed is to increase respect, not
reinforce the idea that age could be bad by explicitly labelling
"elderly" offensive - still I usually say "older adults" or "senior
citizens" more often because I'd hate an older person to feel upset by
anything I said.
And?
Good grief if it's honestly hard for you to comprehend that people who
are in any way on the Left or "liberal" don't all agree about everything
you have serious problems with your thinking skills. Plenty of people
on the Left, including a chunk of the LGB community and feminists,
oppose what you refer to as the trans agenda, how could you not beaware
of this?
Lots
of things have been growing under the Tories. Algal blooms in polluted
water; NHS waiting lists; backlogs; mortgage rates; energy bills; food
prices; the gap between rich and poor; despair....
I'm
just observing from the UK so I've not been following closely - can
someone clarify what this claim is based on exactly? Is it an
extrapolation of the proposed 15 week cut off? Have legislators
specifically said, in significant numbers, that they want medics locked
up?
Also,
the Global crises affecting resources etc are hitting people of colour
in our world hard - I'm really angry that there's been so little
coverage of the current famine, it feels as though our media doesn't
care about the parts of the world where people are most melanated.
that man needs therapy but will he get it without universal healthcare?
Are you trying to reduce support for universal health care?
because i want him to get psychological help?
Do
you really think that many people who see this will think "poor guy, I
hope he gets tax payer funded help"? As you can see from the comments
here, most are only angry with him, not sympathetic. Most people want
most killers (or attempted killers) punished, not
helped (esp with their taxes), and those who need to be won over to
supporting universal health care are even more likely to support justice
over empathy. "poor
guy, I hope he gets tax payer funded help"? protip: thats what taxes
are for. Taxes exist for the benefit of the ENTIRE society and not a
select rich few.
Is
it not obvious to you that most people, especially those who aren't
currently in support of UH, don't think that an attempted mass murderer
deserves help?
And why do you think that "help" or the lack of it is the only factor here? Do you
not
think that a person can be evil? Is, for example, Trump, simply a
victim of a lack of therapy? I don't doubt that mental illness is a
thing, and we all have limitations on our free will/influences on our
actions from our experiences, but that doesn't excuse all evil. "Help"
from UH, which I believe in, should be for people with actual diseases
or injuries.
"Do you not think that a person can be evil?" that religious fascist BS has no place in modern society. try again
I
think you'll find that most people who aren't religious still believe
evil exists. And I'll take that as a yes, you think Trump, as an
example, is simply a victim of not enough therapy. So you have no
justification for being angry with him, or any other horrendous
politician, because they are simply deprived of sessions with shrinks.
This
isn't about my opinion - my point is that you're actually going to
reduce support for UH with comments like yours, and thus reduce the
likelihood of things we actually want being voted for. That you've
suddenly decided to imply that I'm fascist (do you think I care what you
call me?) suggests that you generally have an attitude of not giving a
toss that you put people off rather than working to win support for
causes.
"Christian
nationalist" is an oxymoron. Jesus got flipping angry with those who
tried to use religion for their own gain rat than adhering to God's
commands to love the poor and vulnerable.
