SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Bodhi]

So they can slaughter the meat as usual and just have some dude in pyjamas doing the hokey cokey nearby and it's halal?

 

[Gwadien]

So they can slaughter the meat as usual and just have some dude in pyjamas doing the hokey cokey nearby and it's halal?

Yes.

Halal is completely bullshit anyway, the main thing about halal is its freshness, it's from when the middle eastern dudes were eating rotten meat in the sun and dying, so it was to stop everyone shitting their selves constantly.

Kosher is different, and varies from type of Judaism people follow but most (iirc) can't be stunned.

 

[Scouse]

Kosher is different, and varies from type of Judaism people follow but most (iirc) can't be stunned.

Well, we can, but we pander to their sky-fairy worship.

Which we shouldn't.

 

[Gwadien]

Well, we can, but we pander to their sky-fairy worship.

Which we shouldn't.

Ofc then we should pander to none and tear down the churches

 

[Scouse]

Ofc then we should pander to none and tear down the churches

I didn't realise that you equated the existence of concrete and stone to animal cruelty?

 

[Job]

I am hearing that basically all fast food meat is halal and kosher..which is hilarious from the start.
Then how the fuck do they bless the billion chickens a day the west consumes.

Is there some guy praying at light speed while his mate slits their throats like a ninja on crack.

No if course..its just a paper exercise.

 

[Gwadien]

I am hearing that basically all fast food meat is halal and kosher..which is hilarious from the start.
Then how the fuck do they bless the billion chickens a day the west consumes.

Is there some guy praying at light speed while his mate slits their throats like a ninja on crack.

No if course..its just a paper exercise.

Of course, so why complain about it?

 

[Gwadien]

I didn't realise that you equated the existence of concrete and stone to animal cruelty?

Point is, if we're going to attack 1 backwards element of Religion then we should attack them all (OK, churches aren't probably backwards their selves)

 

[Scouse]

Point is, if we're going to attack 1 backwards element of Religion then we should attack them all

That a) doesn't follow logically b) is totally impractical.

It's a sliding scale of quality, importance and practicality of tackling targets, not just a number of targets.

Animal cruelty is something we can all understand needs to be minimised - and the argument is relatively easy to make that religious tradition is not a good enough reason to cause unnecessary suffering - we've already won that argument across society, so removing religious exemption is a small moral leap, and not overly oppressive to the wants of a religion. It's a battle that can be won.

Attacking the existence of churches is harder to justify. Yes, the argument that religion is dumb can be made but you have to remember belief is an action that people take - to hold an opinion despite evidence to the contrary - to fight the existence of other elements of religions (churches) may require much more oppressive actions - which are much harder to justify morally.

However, it doesn't mean that the existence and relevance of those religions can't be undermined. Economic and intellectual advancement - jobs and education - does that job very well. Coupled with real freedom of speech - including the freedom to ridicule and belittle a religion and it's beliefs publically (that's crucial) - pretty much does for it. As the decimation of christianity in the UK has shown.

It's why christians, jews, muslims are banding together to demand religious "hate speech" laws - because they know free expression undermines their varying flavours of batshittery - and want to ban it. And it's easier for them to do so when they can point at other areas of censorship and say "you protect them..."

Yet another reason why speech should be free and unadulterated.

 

[BloodOmen]

Thoughts? at the risk of being branded transphobic (again), I agree with her. Unless they can 100% prove transgender athletes don't have a genetic advantage, they shouldn't be allowed to compete in opposite-sex sports (or same-sex guess if you want to be politically correct) you know what I mean though.

Sharron Davies: Former British swimmer says transgender athletes should not compete in women's sport

 

[Job]

Unless of course they started off as a woman, and are changing back.

 

[Scouse]

 

[Job]

The real HAL wouldnt write with an exclamation mark.

 

[Job]

This guy could be a standup with a bit of coaching.


View: https://youtu.be/OOnDes8eJ8Y

 

[Scouse]

@Job - stopped watching when he made the tired old argument that a lot of rightwing arseholes on here make: that you can't be against poverty unless you make yourself poor first.

Bloke is a cock.

Edit: watched a bit more: "Company you keep" - don't see you defending Corbyn because he's getting hammered hard because of people he's met with...

 

[Gwadien]

This guy could be a standup with a bit of coaching.


View: https://youtu.be/OOnDes8eJ8Y

Isn't that the second time you've posted this?

 

[Job]

@Job - stopped watching when he made the tired old argument that a lot of rightwing arseholes on here make: that you can't be against poverty unless you make yourself poor first.

Bloke is a cock.

Edit: watched a bit more: "Company you keep" - don't see you defending Corbyn because he's getting hammered hard because of people he's met with...

I have defended him, because its the oldest trick in the book.
But he has directly said a lot of stupid shit, like I wont use our nukes.

Which is game over really.

Yes he did stray into a purile argument over socialist wealth, but its not his usual style.
The rest of his arguments are obviously conservative, but his observations on world affairs are mostly spot on..in my opinion.

Hes a clever guy, theres no denying that.

 

[Scouse]

I wont use our nukes.

Should we use them?

 

[Job]

We should threaten to use them obviously...
And that threat, even from our small arsenal is enough.
Just one bomb, from the six in each missile got through, it could destroy Moscow.

 

[Gwadien]

I have defended him, because its the oldest trick in the book.
But he has directly said a lot of stupid shit, like I wont use our nukes.

Which is game over really.

Yes he did stray into a purile argument over socialist wealth, but its not his usual style.
The rest of his arguments are obviously conservative, but his observations on world affairs are mostly spot on..in my opinion.

Hes a clever guy, theres no denying that.

I think you need to know the difference between people being clever, and people being good at using words.

There's a monumental difference.

 

[Job]

I am very aware of the difference.

You cannot possibly throw that one at him..as he says, you are spreading a wide net accusation.
You could have just said hes full of shit

 

[Gwadien]

Sala probe over club threat claims

Sounds like someone is trying to side-step the blame.

Didn't the phone call before the flight (or texts?) consist of the agent telling him he's sorted his transport?

 

[Syri]

We should threaten to use them obviously...
And that threat, even from our small arsenal is enough.
Just one bomb, from the six in each missile got through, it could destroy Moscow.

Yes, and kill nothing but innocent civilians, who didn't have a say in whether the military would fire a nuke or not. Anyone actually responsible however would have done said launch from the comfort of their own shelter, safe from any harm from any retaliating nukes. Seriously, nobody wins in a nuclear conflict. Why do you think that after 70+ years of nuclear weapons being around, the only ones that have actually been used were the first? There have been a lot of conflicts, but nobody has fired any nuclear weapons, because there's just no point.
To sum it up: If you get nuked, there's no point sending one back, as the ones actually responsible will already be hiding away. And if you're thinking of nuking them first, North Korea will probably have a place for you.

 

[Scouse]

We should threaten to use them obviously...
And that threat, even from our small arsenal is enough.
Just one bomb, from the six in each missile got through, it could destroy Moscow.

No. The question was, should we use them.

 

[BloodOmen]

 

[Job]

No. The question was, should we use them.

Yes because long after the dust has settled, people will remember that one side decided to not to retaliate.
Then the game would change from MAD to 'are they too soft to fight back'.
That makes future wars even more likely.

 

[Gwadien]

Yes because long after the dust has settled, people will remember that one side decided to not to retaliate.
Then the game would change from MAD to 'are they too soft to fight back'.
That makes future wars even more likely.

No it does not.

The only thing that makes major wars happen is when a country is after more resources.

The only thing that stops wars from happening is the US, nothing to do with their nukes, just their sheer military power.

Nukes are a delusion and a waste of money, I highly doubt any sane leader would be able to call for the annihilation of millions of innocent people, the only thing I fear about nukes is that we hold onto them long enough for a crazy dictator to get their hands on them.

They should have a serious conversation about them when the Berlin Wall fell. IE everyone scrapping them completely.

 

[Scouse]

Yes because long after the dust has settled, people will remember ...

It's optimistic to think that people would be around to remember anything. If we started lobbing nukes, whoever we lobbed them at would lob everything they had back, and that'd be that.

But nice to know you're willing murder billions of innocents who'd had nothing to do with anything their political leaders decided to do.

 

[Job]

As George Carlin..said you live on this planet..you are guilty.

 

[Job]

This dude, I mean seriously, he is Q in the flesh


View: https://youtu.be/aa_tCzIMJjE