The Muamba tweets

[Punishment]

My families surname was earned in the crusades by peacefully spreading the word of religion in Jerusalem

 

[DaGaffer]

My families surname was earned in the crusades by peacefully spreading the word of religion in Jerusalem

Ah the famous O'Moslemannoyer family. Are you one of the Cork O'Moslemannoyers or the Limerick O'Moslemannoyers?

 

[Job]

Yes, I'm well aware of the different types and I'm the one living in the real world, you may talk of best case scenarios, but most people don't get the luxury of that, my stepfather died of cardiomyopathy, 2 weeks after
attending hospital with fibrillation and being told to cut down on coffee, he was x-rayed and ECG'd and they failed to spot his heart was enlarged and I'll make my own guesses as to why they gave no attention to his condition.
My grandmother died of cardiac arrest and the ambulance driver told me she was dead from the doorway.
'aren't you going to at least look'
'She's 89 mate'
That's the absolute truth, they made no attempt at anything and just put her in the chair, they were probably right, but this goes on every day and you should know it does.
On a side note RB, seeing as you seem to be in the know, how come when you arrest and recieve CPR within a reasonable period and they can't restart the heart, don't they put you on a heart/lung machine till they can get a donor?
Is it purely cost and logistics or is the likelyhood of survival practically zero?

 

[Turamber]

Considering what you posted above that i find it funny

It was supposed to be. Epic humour fail!

 

[Turamber]

My families surname was earned in the crusades by peacefully spreading the word of religion in Jerusalem

Crusades have very little to do with religion. Sure the Europeans weren't Muslims, but they were there to land grab first and foremost. They took oaths to recover the lands of the Byzantine Emperor, an Orthodox Christian, and promptly put two fingers up at him as well.

You might wish to open up a history book and check out the Fourth Crusade. Don't mistake politics and war mongerers for Christianity.

 

[Scouse]

Turamber, yes, I agree, the crusades weren't about religion.

However, religion was the mobilising and uniting force that enabled the act. It's what got men to leave their homes and families behind, trek across europe, to kill other men.

Without religion the crusades could never have happened.

 

[DaGaffer]

Crusades have very little to do with religion. Sure the Europeans weren't Muslims, but they were there to land grab first and foremost. They took oaths to recover the lands of the Byzantine Emperor, an Orthodox Christian, and promptly put two fingers up at him as well.

You might wish to open up a history book and check out the Fourth Crusade. Don't mistake politics and war mongerers for Christianity.

You're being disengenuous. The very word "Crusade" is derived from the phrase "to take up the cross". The Crusades were backed by the Pope(s) and Cursaders were given plenary indulgences forgiving them for their sins in advance because they were doing "God's work". It doesn't matter that there were political motivations behind a lot of the Crusades, the fact is that religion was used as the device to do it and thousands of pious Christians hacked their way across the middle east in the name of Christ.

Turamber, yes, I agree, the crusades weren't about religion.

However, religion was the mobilising and uniting force that enabled the act. It's what got men to leave their homes and families behind, trek across europe, to kill other men.

Without religion the crusades could never have happened.

This. Except for the last bit. They could, they just wouldn't have been called "Crusades". Substitute "Revolution" and you'll see what I mean. There are perfectly bad secular ideas as well as religious ones.

 

[Job]

 

[Job]

Secularism is irrelevant, people don't believe anymore, quoting god unless it's part of some ancient ceremony
adopted by capitalism will get you the finger twirling around the side of the head response.

 

[Scouse]

This. Except for the last bit. They could, they just wouldn't have been called "Crusades". Substitute "Revolution" and you'll see what I mean. There are perfectly bad secular ideas as well as religious ones.

I disagree Gaff.

Firstly, what else could have motivated an entire populace to trapse all the way across Europe to fight a war against an unknown foe if not a belief-based idea?

Nationalism is enough to make us leave home for a few months to fight the French or the Germans (although, tbfh, we were busy fighting amongst ourselves as well). Wars were much more local back then. The crusades were exceptional - and that's because it was a "holy war".

Secondly, I can't think of a secular idea that wouldn't be openly opposed by large swathes of the population. It's not like dissenters can be accused of being "blashphemers" and threatened with a good old burning if they don't toe the line.

One of religious belief's defining facets is the unquestioning devotion of its followers - what secular idea can claim that level of idiocy?

 

[DaGaffer]

One of religious belief's defining facets is the unquestioning devotion of its followers - what secular idea can claim that level of idiocy?

Communism. It hasn't shown the longevity of religion but for its true believers it took on the same significance and actually used a lot of Crusade-like rhetoric. Naziism is to Communism as Catholicism is to Scientology, but that too featured a lot of crusade analogies (actually even more overtly since the the Nazis were more happy to co-opt religion to their own ends in the first place).

 

[Scouse]

I don't think you can really argue that communism is a belief system any more than capitalism is. It is an oppressive system though.

However, you had to force people at gunpoint to fight under that system, whereas the crusades were born of religious fervour and the technological means to force a people to do that weren't available at the time (and weren't needed).

 

[old.Tohtori]

I don't understand half of how posts are connectted, but since it's religion, i'm assuming the "show ignored content" would produce a plethora of Scouse posts

 

[DaGaffer]

I don't think you can really argue that communism is a belief system any more than capitalism is. It is an oppressive system though.

However, you had to force people at gunpoint to fight under that system, whereas the crusades were born of religious fervour and the technological means to force a people to do that weren't available at the time (and weren't needed).

No, Communism can be interpreted a lot of ways, but it was often hawked as a belief system. The best example would be Mao's Little Red Book and the Cultural Revolution; all the aspects of a crusade powered by fervent belief, and a it probably affected a lot more people than the actual Crusades.

 

[Rubber Bullets]

Yes, I'm well aware of the different types and I'm the one living in the real world, you may talk of best case scenarios, but most people don't get the luxury of that, my stepfather died of cardiomyopathy, 2 weeks after
attending hospital with fibrillation and being told to cut down on coffee, he was x-rayed and ECG'd and they failed to spot his heart was enlarged and I'll make my own guesses as to why they gave no attention to his condition.
My grandmother died of cardiac arrest and the ambulance driver told me she was dead from the doorway.
'aren't you going to at least look'
'She's 89 mate'
That's the absolute truth, they made no attempt at anything and just put her in the chair, they were probably right, but this goes on every day and you should know it does.

Firstly Job I'm genuinely sorry for what happened to your stepfather, I'm not naive or idealist enough to believe that the NHS always does the right thing, and it really does upset me every time I read about the deficiencies, which I do daily in the paper.

In the case of your grandmother I don't know the whole story, but I have no reason to doubt you,it does actually open up a different debate. The process of CPR is not a dignified one, and there is a strong argument that putting someone through it, when there is little hope of success, or of the patient having any quality of life if it succeeds, is morally questionable. It is an ethical and emotional minefield, but these decisions are being made every day.

Of course I was talking about the best case scenario, we are talking about someone who had a heart attack bang in front of several medical teams, with an ambulance on hand and one of the best chest hospitals in the country within driving distance, that is best case by anyones standards, and the vast majority of people suffering a heart attack certainly won't find themselves in this situation, but.

The medics at football matches don't refuse to treat you if you're not a player.

Ambulances don't only take you if you are rich.

The London Chest hospital is part of the Barts NHS Trust and does treat patients who are not famous.

It was unusual, yes, but that doesn't mean it's not real world.

On a side note RB, seeing as you seem to be in the know, how come when you arrest and recieve CPR within a reasonable period and they can't restart the heart, don't they put you on a heart/lung machine till they can get a donor?
Is it purely cost and logistics or is the likelyhood of survival practically zero?

Interesting question actually, and not one I'd ever thought of before. i guess the easy answer is that I can't think of any time that a transplant is used to treat an acute condition. People who are on the transplant lists are there exclusively (as far as I know) as a result of chronic long term conditions, and have had all the work up done to assess their suitability for a transplant, blood group and tissue type etc. but also I imagine pre operative assessments for anaesthetic risk etc. the logistical problems for doing this for patients in the acute situation of having had a heart attack would be huge. then of course there is the dearth of donors in this country, especially in relation to the number of patients who might have heart attacks and be in this situation. I am imagining ITU units full of people on artificial life support for months at a time.

I also suspect that the machines such as in the video I posted are fine for an hour or two, but are not as efficient as the heart at getting blood all round the body, and even if you managed to keep the brain oxygenated then other less well supplied tissues would start to deteriorate pretty quickly.

The flip side of this is that potential donors are often kept alive artificially for extended periods whilst decisions are made about where the various parts will go, and to allow time for recipients to get to hospital etc. These donors however will almost certainly have no brain activity, and have ventilators breathing for them, but will have hearts beating on their own.

RB

 

[Uncle Sick]

We've established elsewhere that we don't do justice and what we've got is definitely not blind.

You're entirely right about arresting pricks for what they say. Nobody should be arrested for saying what they think, ever. To do that is to effectively have thought-crime.

UncleSick misses that point entirely. You should start arresting people when they start taking actions that would harm others, rather than just speaking words.

You don't really get that words lead to deeds chain?

There is nothing wrong with freedom of speech - within reason. And the law.

For example (like that ever works with you but lets try): it's the law not to call a black person a 'nigger'. For many reasons.

So lets say a group of four men with extremely short hair cuts verbally menace an elderly, black lady in a busy street.
A police man is nearby, watching the whole thing. The lady is really scared, but aside from racial slurs and abuse our
neo nazi friends keep it clean. They just keep following her, yelling their fancy slogans.
The cop shrugs and says: "Sorry, ma'am. Freedom of speech." And walks on.

What now? Hope bystanders will help her?
Cracker, please.

Your better world concepts might work in your head, Scouse. Real life bitch slaps you with the human condition.
I understand that you are a man of extremes. Restricting freedom of speech for you means Nazi Germany conditions.

Within reason it means that minorities don't have to be the subject of abuse on a much larger scale than what they already
have to deal with in every day life.

I do assume that you are a healthy, white caucasian male, in your 30ies or 40ies, well off and without any physical deformations?
Try being a homeless gay black with a hunch back, I guess. Extreme enough for you?

 

[Zenith]

One of religious belief's defining facets is the unquestioning devotion of its followers - what secular idea can claim that level of idiocy?

Capitalism

 

[DaGaffer]

You don't really get that words lead to deeds chain?

There is nothing wrong with freedom of speech - within reason. And the law.

For example (like that ever works with you but lets try): it's the law not to call a black person a 'nigger'. For many reasons.

So lets say a group of four men with extremely short hair cuts verbally menace an elderly, black lady in a busy street.
A police man is nearby, watching the whole thing. The lady is really scared, but aside from racial slurs and abuse our
neo nazi friends keep it clean. They just keep following her, yelling their fancy slogans.
The cop shrugs and says: "Sorry, ma'am. Freedom of speech." And walks on.

What now? Hope bystanders will help her?
Cracker, please.

There is plenty of existing law the the policeman could use without resorting to "hate speech" legislation. Threatening behaviour and even breach of the peace are far more likely to be the cop's first port of call. That's a pretty poor example you've used to justify your argument frankly. What it does illustrate is the fact that there's a lot of legislation on the books that is more about PR than protecting the public.

 

[Raven]

How on earth did this get onto religion bashing?

 

[Raven]

I don't think you can really argue that communism is a belief system any more than capitalism is. It is an oppressive system though.

However, you had to force people at gunpoint to fight under that system, whereas the crusades were born of religious fervour and the technological means to force a people to do that weren't available at the time (and weren't needed).

They were also a decent way to make a few quid and move up in politics for a knight. Religion was a major part of it obviously but so was the lootz.

 

[Scouse]

You don't really get that words lead to deeds chain?

I do. I also get that it happens in some cases - in the cases where some people decide to react like stupid violent monkeys instead of intellectual beings.

Personal responsibility. You take that for your actions in the face of what happens to you.


In the case of the example you gave DaGaffer is entirely correct:

There is plenty of existing law the the policeman could use without resorting to "hate speech" legislation. Threatening behaviour and even breach of the peace are far more likely to be the cop's first port of call. That's a pretty poor example you've used to justify your argument frankly. What it does illustrate is the fact that there's a lot of legislation on the books that is more about PR than protecting the public.

Do so few remember Voltaire any more? Or have we regressed to shit since the 1980's?

 

[old.Tohtori]

How on earth did this get onto religion bashing?

With Scouse involved, you surprised?

 

[Bigmac]

No sympathy for cunts, hope they throw the book at him.

 

[Uncle Sick]

There is plenty of existing law the the policeman could use without resorting to "hate speech" legislation. Threatening behaviour and even breach of the peace are far more likely to be the cop's first port of call. That's a pretty poor example you've used to justify your argument frankly. What it does illustrate is the fact that there's a lot of legislation on the books that is more about PR than protecting the public.

Alright, lets modify my example. What if it's just one guy, no one special, who uses a racial slur as he passes her.

Not threatening, not breaching the peace.

Honestly? That's ok? Just freedom of speech?


I'm not some closet fascist who wants to oppress the masses - but I think laws are supposed to protect us.
And life is not black and white, despite some peoples efforts.

There were plenty of cunning agitators throughout history who used speech to incite the masses.
Hitler never personally killed a jew to my knowledge.

 

[DaGaffer]

Alright, lets modify my example. What if it's just one guy, no one special, who uses a racial slur as he passes her.

Not threatening, not breaching the peace.

Honestly? That's ok? Just freedom of speech?

I'm not some closet fascist who wants to oppress the masses - but I think laws are supposed to protect us.
And life is not black and white, despite some peoples efforts.

There were plenty of cunning agitators throughout history who used speech to incite the masses.
Hitler never personally killed a jew to my knowledge.

Still Breach of The Peace. Assuming a cop actually heard it. Common Law actually gives the police a shit load of power.

 

[Punishment]

Alright, lets modify my example. What if it's just one guy, no one special, who uses a racial slur as he passes her.

Not threatening, not breaching the peace.

Honestly? That's ok? Just freedom of speech?


I'm not some closet fascist who wants to oppress the masses - but I think laws are supposed to protect us.
And life is not black and white, despite some peoples efforts.

There were plenty of cunning agitators throughout history who used speech to incite the masses.
Hitler never personally killed a jew to my knowledge.

Ahh fucking racist, Police Police haaaaaaaaaalp

 

[soze]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17515992

Looks like he plead guilty so how they would prove it never really came up.

 

[Tom]

I guess that judge has never played CS.

 

[Raven]

I think it's hilarious

Life ruined for being a cunt.

 

[Scouse]

How come you're not in prison then?

"Life ruined". Yep. For a pissed up racist twitter post. Oh noes! Crime of the century. Certainly worth ruining a young university student's life, restricting the jobs he'll be able to get to low paid shite for the rest of his life and all the misery that goes with it.

Writing something on the internet that some people may take offence at is now officially one of the worst crimes in the UK.

I have actually seen less time given for assault.