Real Christians...following their "guide book"

by Guest Wed Oct 14, 2015 9:33 pm

First topic message reminder :

Parents Charged With Killing Son In Church

A teenager is killed and his brother is seriously hurt in a so-called "counselling session" aimed at getting them to confess sins.

19:03, UK, Wednesday 14 October 2015
Bruce Leonard and his wife Deborah Leonard are charged in the beating death of their 19-year-old son

A couple have been charged with fatally beating their 19-year-old son in an apparent "counselling session" at a church in central New York

Bruce Leonard, 65, and 59-year-old Deborah Leonard are charged with first-degree manslaughter in the death of their son Lucas.

Four other members of the Word of Life Church in New Hartford were charged with assault for the attack that also left Lucas' younger brother, Christopher, seriously injured.

Authorities said the beatings were part of what parishioners referred to as a "counselling session".
David Morey, 26, of Utica Linda Morey, 54, are charged with felony second-degree assault

David Morey, 26, and Linda Morey, 54, pleaded not guilty to assault

New Hartford Police Chief Michael Inserra said the teens were subjected to hours of physical punishment "in hopes that each would confess to prior sins and ask for forgiveness".

Investigators are still looking into what the supposed sins were, Chief Inserra said.

Officers responded to the church at about 12.30pm on Monday after family members brought Lucas to hospital, where he was pronounced dead.
Sarah Ferguson, 33 and Joseph Irwin, 26, are charged with felony second-degree assault

Sarah Ferguson, 33, and Joseph Irwin, 26, were also charged

State and local officials cordoned off the church and began interviewing parishioners.

Several children found inside were turned over to child welfare officials, police said.

Authorities said Lucas and Christopher suffered injuries to their abdomens, genitals, backs and thighs.

Christopher, 17, remains in hospital in serious condition, Chief Inserra told a news conference on Wednesday.

The teens' parents pleaded not guilty at their arraignment on Tuesday and are being held in Oneida County Jail in lieu of $100,000 bail each.

Lawyers for the couple declined to comment on the case.

David Morey, 26, Linda Morey, 54, Sarah Ferguson, 33 and Joseph Irwin, 26, were ordered held on $50,000 bail. All four pleaded not guilty to a felony count of second-degree assault.

from "http://news.sky.com/story/1569536/parents-charged-with-killing-son-in-church"

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. -- Deuteronomy 21:18-21

He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. -- Exodus 21:15

He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 21:17

by Guest Fri Oct 16, 2015 12:42 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

Delightful bullshit

Tell me why you think the quran is the third book of Abrahamic theology??

Cause it came after the second one? And says it is a continuation of Jehovah's laws..
Muslims do follow the old and new testaments too you know, Just not the same translations (that vary widely with the centuries and distance), their old testament is actually closer to the Torah

Real Christians...following their "guide book" - Page 2 Laughi13

the funniest thing is that you actually think that what you say makes sense Laughing

by Guest Fri Oct 16, 2015 12:44 pm

tell me veyva

if i was to say that obama was a white republican and quill was to say that he was ablack democrat

out of me and quill who would be talking about obama?

by Fuzzy Zack Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:07 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:tell me veyva

if i was to say that obama was a white republican and quill was to say that he was ablack democrat

out of me and quill who would be talking about obama?

Obama is just as much white as he is black.

Obama is just as much Republican as he is a Democrat.

by Guest Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:28 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:tell me veyva

if i was to say that obama was a white republican and quill was to say that he was ablack democrat

out of me and quill who would be talking about obama?

Obama is just as much white as he is black.

Obama is just as much Republican as he is a Democrat.

you could run for PM with an answer like that fuzzmuck

by Guest Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:38 pm

Don't give him ideas smelly

by Fuzzy Zack Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:53 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Obama is just as much white as he is black.

Obama is just as much Republican as he is a Democrat.

you could run for PM with an answer like that fuzzmuck

I am the a son of a diplomat and a grandson of an minister (in India) - politics is in my blood.

don't worry Smelly, I won't overlook you in my new government. Hope your papers are in order. ;-)

by Guest Fri Oct 16, 2015 3:22 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

you could run for PM with an answer like that fuzzmuck

I am the a son of a diplomat and a grandson of an minister (in India) - politics is in my blood.

don't worry Smelly, I won't overlook you in my new government. Hope your papers are in order. ;-)

I'll just do a taqqiya and pretend I'm Muslim, you can make me your chief "wrong kind of Muslim" slayer

Which are you by the way?? Sunni or shia? Not that I have a preference mind ,under the fuzzmuck caliphate I will be happy to slay Muslims all day long inshallah

by Fuzzy Zack Fri Oct 16, 2015 3:44 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I am the a son of a diplomat and a grandson of an minister (in India) - politics is in my blood.

don't worry Smelly, I won't overlook you in my new government. Hope your papers are in order. ;-)

I'll just do a taqqiya and pretend I'm Muslim, you can make me your chief "wrong kind of Muslim" slayer

Which are you by the way?? Sunni or shia? Not that I have a preference mind ,under the fuzzmuck caliphate I will be happy to slay Muslims all day long inshallah

I'm a Sunni

Shia's don't have Caliphates.

by eddie Fri Oct 16, 2015 3:59 pm

Smelly and Zack: you do love to hate eachother.
Underneath it all, there's almost a hint of grudging respect..... Razz

by Fuzzy Zack Fri Oct 16, 2015 4:08 pm

eddie wrote:Smelly and Zack: you do love to hate eachother.
Underneath it all, there's almost a hint of grudging respect.....

Smelly is my oldest Sky/forum friend.

My heart is big enough even for a twat like him.

by Original Quill Fri Oct 16, 2015 4:10 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:Well quill you fall into the usual atheist trap of "not having a clue" about Christian theology

Thank you, thank you. I'd like to say I'm proud, but I simply don't care.

by Guest Fri Oct 16, 2015 5:07 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

I'll just do a taqqiya and pretend I'm Muslim, you can make me your chief "wrong kind of Muslim" slayer

Which are you by the way?? Sunni or shia? Not that I have a preference mind ,under the fuzzmuck caliphate I will be happy to slay Muslims all day long inshallah

I'm a Sunni

Shia's don't have Caliphates.

Such a pity for the shites eh??

Look at ISIS's caliphate, they seem to be having a whale of a time. Oh well like I said I have no preference

Though I daresay I will need a snappy name,if I am to be your chief Muslim slayer we cannot have that scallywag jihadi John outdoing us now can we

Perhaps "the smelly jihadi"?

What do you think caliph??

by SEXY MAMA Fri Oct 16, 2015 5:41 pm

nicko wrote:You don't piss me off you Muslim scum, you just make my opinion of Muslims lower ever time I read your racist comments!

Tut tut tut

Why use his religion?

You could have easily writen scum!

Mad

by Original Quill Fri Oct 16, 2015 5:49 pm

SEXY MAMA wrote:
nicko wrote:You don't piss me off you Muslim scum, you just make my opinion of Muslims lower ever time I read your racist comments!

Tut tut tut

Why use his religion?

You could have easily writen scum!

I keep making that same point...over and over, but they don't get it.

Adjectives are not argument. I think they've lost their sense of thinking, so all they have remaining are epithets.

by Guest Fri Oct 16, 2015 5:53 pm

SEXY MAMA wrote:
nicko wrote:You don't piss me off you Muslim scum, you just make my opinion of Muslims lower ever time I read your racist comments!

Tut tut tut

Why use his religion?

You could have easily writen scum!

tut tut didn't you know that its the way things are done on here Laughing

by Guest Fri Oct 16, 2015 5:54 pm

Original Quill wrote:
SEXY MAMA wrote:

Tut tut tut

Why use his religion?

You could have easily writen scum!

I keep making that same point...over and over, but they don't get it.

Adjectives are not argument. I think they've lost their sense of thinking, so all they have remaining are epithets.

quill come now you don't really believe that moslems are the only people on here that have their religion used against them do you ???

by Guest Fri Oct 16, 2015 5:59 pm

Cos nicko isnt subjugated by PC.....

cos, given that in Nickos view fuzz is "scum"

and given that it it also a tueism that fuzzy is a Muslim

why do you object to the term nicko used

the "Muslim" .... part is OBJECTIVELY true and correct the "scum" part is of course more subjective

and YET the PC brigade object to "Muslim" scum

not Muslim SCUM ?

This is why the supporters of PC are all irredeemably insane Rolling Eyes

by Guest Fri Oct 16, 2015 6:02 pm

and of course further PC idiocy is demonstarted by the fact I cant capitalise the word Muslim.

control over emphasis and meaning ....

merely reinforces and provides proof of the fact that PC is intended to stifle thought and conversation itself....

by Original Quill Fri Oct 16, 2015 6:05 pm

Vicar Of Dibley wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I keep making that same point...over and over, but they don't get it.

Adjectives are not argument. I think they've lost their sense of thinking, so all they have remaining are epithets.

quill come now you don't really believe that moslems are the only people on here that have their religion used against them do you ???

The point I was speaking to was the use of language or dialogue, loaded with nothing but adjectives.

Adjectives are not arguments. If I call you a name, or hurl an epithet at you, what do I accomplish? Well, I reveal to any third-party listener that I have feelings toward you. So...I have not shown anything weak in your argument, but I have bared open my own soul about my own fears and insecurities.

When you do this you respond to reason with an impulse; that's why I constantly refer to RW arguments as bowel urges...no rational content, but an urgent need to expel gas.

by Guest Fri Oct 16, 2015 6:09 pm

okey dokey Rolling Eyes

by Guest Fri Oct 16, 2015 6:14 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Vicar Of Dibley wrote:

quill come now you don't really believe that moslems are the only people on here that have their religion used against them do you ???

The point I was speaking to was the use of language or dialogue, loaded with nothing but adjectives.

Adjectives are not arguments. If I call you a name, or hurl an epithet at you, what do I accomplish? Well, I reveal to any third-party listener that I have feelings toward you. So...I have not shown anything weak in your argument, but I have bared open my own soul about my own fears and insecurities.

When you do this you respond to reason with an impulse; that's why I constantly refer to RW arguments as bowel urges...no rational content, but an urgent need to expel gas.

But what you are actually arguing for is the language of robots, lacking in passion, drive and urgency.
Language or rather our capacity for using it has, built into it an immense "multiple redundancy factor" AND at the same time has the ability to reduce to few sounds, what would otherwise take a month to say

which is the "better" in terms of lack of unnecessary use of time and energy

F**k off tw*t

or

go away, rapidly and utterly, you (add 20 words of polite but still insulting terms)

by Original Quill Fri Oct 16, 2015 6:30 pm

victorismyhero wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

The point I was speaking to was the use of language or dialogue, loaded with nothing but adjectives.

Adjectives are not arguments. If I call you a name, or hurl an epithet at you, what do I accomplish? Well, I reveal to any third-party listener that I have feelings toward you. So...I have not shown anything weak in your argument, but I have bared open my own soul about my own fears and insecurities.

When you do this you respond to reason with an impulse; that's why I constantly refer to RW arguments as bowel urges...no rational content, but an urgent need to expel gas.

But what you are actually arguing for is the language of robots, lacking in passion, drive and urgency.
Language or rather our capacity for using it has, built into it an immense "multiple redundancy factor" AND at the same time has the ability to reduce to few sounds, what would otherwise take a month to say

which is the "better" in terms of lack of unnecessary use of time and energy

F**k off tw*t

or

go away, rapidly and utterly, you (add 20 words of polite but still insulting terms)

Well, whatever "multiple redundancy factor" means, the reasonable or rational dialogue aims at problem solving. There are many different uses of language: command; assent; information...many different mental intentions. Nierenberg, The Complete Negotiator (1986). Even "Fuck off twat" is a direction or command, and thus conveys meaning.

But use of an adjective can do nothing as it conveys color, but no meaning. That is not to say it doesn't have content...but the content never leaves the speaker. Hence, what I said about how it says something about the speaker, but nothing else.

Essentially, it is the ultimate bowel urge.

by Guest Fri Oct 16, 2015 6:41 pm

Original Quill wrote:
victorismyhero wrote:

But what you are actually arguing for is the language of robots, lacking in passion, drive and urgency.
Language or rather our capacity for using it has, built into it an immense "multiple redundancy factor" AND at the same time has the ability to reduce to few sounds, what would otherwise take a month to say

which is the "better" in terms of lack of unnecessary use of time and energy

F**k off tw*t

or

go away, rapidly and utterly, you (add 20 words of polite but still insulting terms)

Well, whatever "multiple redundancy factor" means, the reasonable or rational dialogue aims at problem solving. There are many different uses of language: command; assent; information...many different mental intentions. Nierenberg, The Complete Negotiator (1986). Even "Fuck off twat" is a direction or command, and thus conveys meaning.

But use of an adjective can do nothing as it conveys color, but no meaning. That is not to say it doesn't have content...but the content never leaves the speaker. Hence, what I said about how it says something about the speaker, but nothing else.

Essentially, it is the ultimate bowel urge.

but ..you are trying to shoe horn people into little boxes "rational" and "reasonable" whereas the truth is , on all sides of the spectrum when the gloves come off and passions roused people in general are NEITHER rational OR reasonable, L/W...R/W centrist, none are particularly "rational" (except within their own definition) nor are either "reasonable".

If the truth be know the worst "sinners" in that respect are the L/W....whos instant bowel urge upon being challenged is "racist" . in other words what they are saying in that one word abjective is ...we dont have a valid and reasonable argument to counter yours we only know ...regardless of any evidence to the contrary....that we are correct, AND we are not going to listen to you.....

by Fuzzy Zack Fri Oct 16, 2015 6:49 pm

SEXY MAMA wrote:
nicko wrote:You don't piss me off you Muslim scum, you just make my opinion of Muslims lower ever time I read your racist comments!

Tut tut tut

Why use his religion?

You could have easily writen scum!

Because his true bigotry is revealed when he loses his temper. tongue

by Guest Fri Oct 16, 2015 6:57 pm

do you deny you are Muslim zack...I mean...it may well be said that the only "not true" part of his statement is that you are scum

are you seriously objecting to being called "Muslim...

and yet NOT objecting to being called "scum"

fook me what a world we live in Suspect

by Fuzzy Zack Fri Oct 16, 2015 7:04 pm

victorismyhero wrote:do you deny you are Muslim zack...I mean...it may well be said that the only "not true" part of his statement is that you are scum

are you seriously objecting to being called "Muslim...

and yet NOT objecting to being called "scum"

fook me what a world we live in

Didge and Eilzel have made the same point - and they've made similar statements to me also.

As I said to them: thats no different to Paki scum.

Paki by itself is not offensive. But put those words together and voila, you have a racist.

by Guest Fri Oct 16, 2015 7:09 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
victorismyhero wrote:do you deny you are Muslim zack...I mean...it may well be said that the only "not true" part of his statement is that you are scum

are you seriously objecting to being called "Muslim...

and yet NOT objecting to being called "scum"

fook me what a world we live in

Didge and Eilzel have made the same point - and they've made similar statements to me also.

As I said to them: thats no different to Paki scum.

Paki by itself is not offensive. But put those words together and voila, you have a racist.

BUT...THEN you have the valid point

IF the person is both paki AND scum

then HOW can it be "racist"

its merely "true"

of course there IS the problem of defining what constitutes "scum" since that is purely subjective

lets say someone robbed you

when talking to the cop you have the alternatives of

I was robbed by a XXXXXX person, the twat stole my wallet

OR saying the XXXXXXX twat stole my wallet

the second would be considered racist.....

WHY ???? fgs???

by Original Quill Fri Oct 16, 2015 7:26 pm

victorismyhero wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Well, whatever "multiple redundancy factor" means, the reasonable or rational dialogue aims at problem solving. There are many different uses of language: command; assent; information...many different mental intentions. Nierenberg, The Complete Negotiator (1986). Even "Fuck off twat" is a direction or command, and thus conveys meaning.

But use of an adjective can do nothing as it conveys color, but no meaning. That is not to say it doesn't have content...but the content never leaves the speaker. Hence, what I said about how it says something about the speaker, but nothing else.

Essentially, it is the ultimate bowel urge.

but ..you are trying to shoe horn people into little boxes "rational" and "reasonable" whereas the truth is , on all sides of the spectrum when the gloves come off and passions roused people in general are NEITHER rational OR reasonable, L/W...R/W centrist, none are particularly "rational" (except within their own definition) nor are either "reasonable".

If the truth be know the worst "sinners" in that respect are the L/W....whos instant bowel urge upon being challenged is "racist" . in other words what they are saying in that one word abjective is ...we dont have a valid and reasonable argument to counter yours we only know ...regardless of any evidence to the contrary....that we are correct, AND we are not going to listen to you.....

I don't typically hear gratuitous epithets and unaccompanied adjectives from LWers. I hear them all the time from RWers. That is because RWers are reactors, while LWers are generally pursuing original thoughts and aims. What RWers stand for is the status quo, and there is no purpose other than to oppose the LW.

Other than being a 'mirror-image' argument, which RWers do a lot, your reference to racism is meaningless. Racism is something that the RWers do; the accusation of LW racism is a concept that RWers invent so that they can engage in 'me-too' retorts. It's not real.

In order to understand the RW rhetoric, take a look conservative economist and Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek's, Why I'm Not a Conservative.

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf

It's a fascinating piece, by a conservative (I must add), in which he lays out how arguments flow from positions, and the position of the conservative is to stand pat and represent nothing. Hence their arguments tend to be unoriginal and purposeless--and, I will add, if Hayak does not, tend to end up as epithets and adjectives.

By contrast, liberals and LWers tend to have an independent project or purpose--be it socialism or welfare, etc.--which guides their efforts. They are not other-side focused, as are RWers. Whether you agree or disagree with the LW project or purpose is another matter. His energy is not wasted on the Right, as the RWers energy is on the Left.

by Guest Fri Oct 16, 2015 7:29 pm

Original Quill wrote:
victorismyhero wrote:

but ..you are trying to shoe horn people into little boxes "rational" and "reasonable" whereas the truth is , on all sides of the spectrum when the gloves come off and passions roused people in general are NEITHER rational OR reasonable, L/W...R/W centrist, none are particularly "rational" (except within their own definition) nor are either "reasonable".

If the truth be know the worst "sinners" in that respect are the L/W....whos instant bowel urge upon being challenged is "racist" . in other words what they are saying in that one word abjective is ...we dont have a valid and reasonable argument to counter yours we only know ...regardless of any evidence to the contrary....that we are correct, AND we are not going to listen to you.....

I don't typically hear gratuitous epithets and unaccompanied adjectives from LWers.

then quill you are selectively deaf...

I hear them all the time from RWers. That is because RWers are reactors, while LWers are generally pursuing original thoughts and aims. What RWers stand for is the status quo, and there is no purpose other than to oppose the LW.

Other than being a 'mirror-image' argument, which RWers do a lot, your reference to racism is meaningless. Racism is something that the RWers do; the accusation of LW racism is a concept that RWers invent so that they can engage in 'me-too' retorts. It's not real.

In order to understand the RW rhetoric, take a look conservative economist and Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek's, Why I'm Not a Conservative. http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf It's a fascinating piece, by a conservative (I must add), in which he lays out how arguments flow from positions, and the position of the conservative is to stand pat and represent nothing. Hence their arguments tend to be unoriginal and purposeless--and, I will add, tend to end up as epithets and adjectives.

By contrast, liberals and LWers tend to have an independent project or purpose--be it socialism or welfare, etc.--which guides their efforts. They are not other-side focused, as are RWers. Whether you agree or disagree with the LW project or purpose is another matter. His energy is not wasted on the Right, as the RWers energy is on the Left.

by nicko Fri Oct 16, 2015 7:29 pm

Zack would still be scum regardless of his religion, i'v "known" him for years, he's a racist bigot who enjoys making dirty remarks.

by Original Quill Fri Oct 16, 2015 7:30 pm

victorismyhero wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I don't typically hear gratuitous epithets and unaccompanied adjectives from LWers.

then quill you are selectively deaf...

I hear them all the time from RWers. That is because RWers are reactors, while LWers are generally pursuing original thoughts and aims. What RWers stand for is the status quo, and there is no purpose other than to oppose the LW.

Other than being a 'mirror-image' argument, which RWers do a lot, your reference to racism is meaningless. Racism is something that the RWers do; the accusation of LW racism is a concept that RWers invent so that they can engage in 'me-too' retorts. It's not real.

In order to understand the RW rhetoric, take a look conservative economist and Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek's, Why I'm Not a Conservative. http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf It's a fascinating piece, by a conservative (I must add), in which he lays out how arguments flow from positions, and the position of the conservative is to stand pat and represent nothing. Hence their arguments tend to be unoriginal and purposeless--and, I will add, tend to end up as epithets and adjectives.

By contrast, liberals and LWers tend to have an independent project or purpose--be it socialism or welfare, etc.--which guides their efforts. They are not other-side focused, as are RWers. Whether you agree or disagree with the LW project or purpose is another matter. His energy is not wasted on the Right, as the RWers energy is on the Left.

That's the kind of silly retort that RWers throw. You haven't thought a bit about the subject, least of all, read Hayak.

by Guest Fri Oct 16, 2015 7:39 pm

well I prefer real life situations to some theoretical wafflings

read the whole of the article i link to ...then consider carefully THIS paragraph, which demonstartes my point entirely

In Lower Saxony, the pressure to find accommodation is strong, the Interior Ministry explained to the meeting. Last year, almost 19,000 asylum applications were received, in 2015 there were already more than 75,000. Homes had to be found and the tenor of the meeting was that anyone who opposed that flow was xenophobic.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10/14/tiny-german-village-forced-accept-one-thousand-migrants-officials-mystified-complaints/

you have to read the whole article to have the above in context

the word xenophobic...used to kill discussion and objection

the lefties doing EXACTLY what you accuse the Right of doing

by Fuzzy Zack Fri Oct 16, 2015 7:39 pm

victorismyhero wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge and Eilzel have made the same point - and they've made similar statements to me also.

As I said to them: thats no different to Paki scum.

Paki by itself is not offensive. But put those words together and voila, you have a racist.

BUT...THEN you have the valid point

IF the person is both paki AND scum

then HOW can it be "racist"

its merely "true"

of course there IS the problem of defining what constitutes "scum" since that is purely subjective

lets say someone robbed you

when talking to the cop you have the alternatives of

I was robbed by a XXXXXX person, the twat stole my wallet

OR saying the XXXXXXX twat stole my wallet

the second would be considered racist.....

WHY ???? fgs???

The kind of words one uses says a lot about a person.

Assuming you actually knew the ethnicity of a person (which is not always true), the kind of descriptions you use tells a lot about a person.

There's s difference between saying "That Paki twat stole my wallet" and "That Pakistani twat stole my wallet".

That's to do with the historical use of the word Paki in the UK. The Police would probably arrest you for just using the word "Paki".

So let's use the term "Black".

"That black bastard stole my wallet" means you associated his race with being a bastard.

"That bastard stole my wallet, he was black" does not make that association.

Unfortunately most racists are thick and have appauling grammar.

by nicko Fri Oct 16, 2015 7:45 pm

HA HA zack's admitting he's thick!

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 16, 2015 7:46 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
victorismyhero wrote:

BUT...THEN you have the valid point

IF the person is both paki AND scum

then HOW can it be "racist"

its merely "true"

of course there IS the problem of defining what constitutes "scum" since that is purely subjective

lets say someone robbed you

when talking to the cop you have the alternatives of

I was robbed by a XXXXXX person, the twat stole my wallet

OR saying the XXXXXXX twat stole my wallet

the second would be considered racist.....

WHY ???? fgs???

The kind of words one uses says a lot about a person.

Assuming you actually knew the ethnicity of a person (which is not always true), the kind of descriptions you use tells a lot about a person.

There's s difference between saying "That Paki twat stole my wallet" and "That Pakistani twat stole my wallet".

That's to do with the historical use of the word Paki in the UK. The Police would probably arrest you for just using the word "Paki".

So let's use the term "Black".

"That black bastard stole my wallet" means you associated his race with being a bastard.

"That bastard stole my wallet, he was black" does not make that association.

Unfortunately most racists are thick and have appauling grammar.

And appalling spelling by the look of it. Cool

by Fuzzy Zack Fri Oct 16, 2015 7:48 pm

nicko wrote:HA HA zack's admitting he's thick!

Ah, did the old man wake up after his nap?

by Guest Fri Oct 16, 2015 7:51 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
victorismyhero wrote:

BUT...THEN you have the valid point

IF the person is both paki AND scum

then HOW can it be "racist"

its merely "true"

of course there IS the problem of defining what constitutes "scum" since that is purely subjective

lets say someone robbed you

when talking to the cop you have the alternatives of

I was robbed by a XXXXXX person, the twat stole my wallet

OR saying the XXXXXXX twat stole my wallet

the second would be considered racist.....

WHY ???? fgs???

The kind of words one uses says a lot about a person.

Assuming you actually knew the ethnicity of a person (which is not always true), the kind of descriptions you use tells a lot about a person.

There's s difference between saying "That Paki twat stole my wallet" and "That Pakistani twat stole my wallet".

That's to do with the historical use of the word Paki in the UK. The Police would probably arrest you for just using the word "Paki".

So let's use the term "Black".

"That black bastard stole my wallet" means you associated his race with being a bastard.

"That bastard stole my wallet, he was black" does not make that association.

Unfortunately most racists are thick and have appauling grammar.

uhmmm...perhaps YOU should learn english and better your grammar fuzzy

the term
"bastard" has been used as an epithet for centuries...indeed in the past it was a "deadly" insult, who's use could only be resolved by single combat

ther is NO association between race and the following "epithet" (unless you are a warped wannabe victim)

are you saying that XXXXX twat associates xxxxxx's race with being twats

or ???

It is simply NOT true ...except in the twisted world of the lefty twat

its like saying calling somneone a "f**king turkey" is associating "f**king with turkeys

er nope...well not as a rule anyway.....

to put it in the association YOU are implying

rather than black bastard....which is merly decriptive follwed by epithet

IF you wanted to associate his race with being bastards you would in fact HAVE to say

"bastard black"

and even THEN the race association is very weak.....

maybe I am the only one on here that can speak "educated english"

aside from perhaps astoundingly Raggs and Smelly...whos command of english is quite impressive

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 16, 2015 7:54 pm

victorismyhero wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

The kind of words one uses says a lot about a person.

Assuming you actually knew the ethnicity of a person (which is not always true), the kind of descriptions you use tells a lot about a person.

There's s difference between saying "That Paki twat stole my wallet" and "That Pakistani twat stole my wallet".

That's to do with the historical use of the word Paki in the UK. The Police would probably arrest you for just using the word "Paki".

So let's use the term "Black".

"That black bastard stole my wallet" means you associated his race with being a bastard.

"That bastard stole my wallet, he was black" does not make that association.

Unfortunately most racists are thick and have appauling grammar.

uhmmm...perhaps YOU should learn english and better your grammar fuzzy

the term
"bastard" has been used as an epithet for centuries...indeed in the past it was a "deadly" insult, who's use could only be resolved by single combat

ther is NO association between race and the following "epithet" (unless you are a warped wannabe victim)

are you saying that XXXXX twat associates xxxxxx's race with being twats

or ???

It is simply NOT true ...except in the twisted world of the lefty twat

its like saying calling somneone a "f**king turkey" is associating "f**king with turkeys

er nope...well not as a rule anyway.....

to put it in the association YOU are implying

rather than black bastard....which is merly decriptive follwed by epithet

IF you wanted to associate his race with being bastards you would in fact HAVE to say

"bastard black"

and even THEN the race association is very weak.....

maybe I am the only one on here that can speak "educated english"

aside from perhaps astoundingly Raggs and Smelly...whos command of english is quite impressive

You seem surprised by that. Neutral

by Fuzzy Zack Fri Oct 16, 2015 7:55 pm

victorismyhero wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

The kind of words one uses says a lot about a person.

Assuming you actually knew the ethnicity of a person (which is not always true), the kind of descriptions you use tells a lot about a person.

There's s difference between saying "That Paki twat stole my wallet" and "That Pakistani twat stole my wallet".

That's to do with the historical use of the word Paki in the UK. The Police would probably arrest you for just using the word "Paki".

So let's use the term "Black".

"That black bastard stole my wallet" means you associated his race with being a bastard.

"That bastard stole my wallet, he was black" does not make that association.

Unfortunately most racists are thick and have appauling grammar.

uhmmm...perhaps YOU should learn english and better your grammar fuzzy

the term
"bastard" has been used as an epithet for centuries...indeed in the past it was a "deadly" insult, who's use could only be resolved by single combat

ther is NO association between race and the following "epithet" (unless you are a warped wannabe victim)

are you saying that XXXXX twat associates xxxxxx's race with being twats

or ???

It is simply NOT true ...except in the twisted world of the lefty twat

its like saying calling somneone a "f**king turkey" is associating "f**king with turkeys

er nope...well not as a rule anyway.....

to put it in the association YOU are implying

rather than black bastard....which is merly decriptive follwed by epithet

IF you wanted to associate his race with being bastards you would in fact HAVE to say

"bastard black"

and even THEN the race association is very weak.....

maybe I am the only one on here that can speak "educated english"

aside from perhaps astoundingly Raggs and Smelly...whos command of english is quite impressive

Do you really want to me go over your post and correct your grammatical and syntax errors?

"Whos command of English"!

Really? Lol!

by Fuzzy Zack Fri Oct 16, 2015 7:56 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
victorismyhero wrote:

uhmmm...perhaps YOU should learn english and better your grammar fuzzy

the term
"bastard" has been used as an epithet for centuries...indeed in the past it was a "deadly" insult, who's use could only be resolved by single combat

ther is NO association between race and the following "epithet" (unless you are a warped wannabe victim)

are you saying that XXXXX twat associates xxxxxx's race with being twats

or ???

It is simply NOT true ...except in the twisted world of the lefty twat

its like saying calling somneone a "f**king turkey" is associating "f**king with turkeys

er nope...well not as a rule anyway.....

to put it in the association YOU are implying

rather than black bastard....which is merly decriptive follwed by epithet

IF you wanted to associate his race with being bastards you would in fact HAVE to say

"bastard black"

and even THEN the race association is very weak.....

maybe I am the only one on here that can speak "educated english"

aside from perhaps astoundingly Raggs and Smelly...whos command of english is quite impressive

You seem surprised by that.

Funny how you didn't spot the mistake there. Lol!

by Fuzzy Zack Fri Oct 16, 2015 7:57 pm

Back later.

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 16, 2015 7:59 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You seem surprised by that.

Funny how you didn't spot the mistake there. Lol!

I bet you would have put an apostrophe in there ...

by Guest Fri Oct 16, 2015 8:00 pm

I used the term astoundingly as implied sarcasm Raggs...for the lesser mortals here

we may sometimes disagree strongly on things....that doesnt mean I disrespect you OR that I deny your clearly good standard of education...

the same with smelly, doubless there is much he and I would disagree on as well as agree on....that doesnt detract from his clearly educated use of english

I wouldnt describe either of you as thick....that wont stop me calling you "dumbell" to wind you up... Razz

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 16, 2015 8:23 pm

victorismyhero wrote:I used the term astoundingly as implied sarcasm Raggs...for the lesser mortals here

we may sometimes disagree strongly on things....that doesnt mean I disrespect you OR that I deny your clearly good standard of education...

the same with smelly, doubless there is much he and I would disagree on as well as agree on....that doesnt detract from his clearly educated use of english

I wouldnt describe either of you as thick....that wont stop me calling you "dumbell" to wind you up...

Thanks - I think. Laughing

by Guest Fri Oct 16, 2015 9:00 pm

Original Quill wrote:
SEXY MAMA wrote:

Tut tut tut

Why use his religion?

You could have easily writen scum!

I keep making that same point...over and over, but they don't get it.

Adjectives are not argument. I think they've lost their sense of thinking, so all they have remaining are epithets.

how would you know what an argumnet is??

we have yet to see one from you

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 16, 2015 9:06 pm

SEXY MAMA wrote:
nicko wrote:You don't piss me off you Muslim scum, you just make my opinion of Muslims lower ever time I read your racist comments!

Tut tut tut

Why use his religion?

You could have easily writen scum!

You only defend your "own kind". That makes you RACIST, according to Veya. Real Christians...following their "guide book" - Page 2 2984306523

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 16, 2015 9:09 pm

Vicar Of Dibley wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I keep making that same point...over and over, but they don't get it.

Adjectives are not argument. I think they've lost their sense of thinking, so all they have remaining are epithets.

quill come now you don't really believe that moslems are the only people on here that have their religion used against them do you ???

Quill doesn't notice that kind of thing as a rule - when it's directed at anyone white and Christian.

Besides, he uses the term "white trash", so he's not in a position to say anything really.

by Fuzzy Zack Sat Oct 17, 2015 12:52 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Funny how you didn't spot the mistake there. Lol!

I bet you would have put an apostrophe in there ...

That's a wind up, right?

by Original Quill Sat Oct 17, 2015 12:58 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Vicar Of Dibley wrote:

quill come now you don't really believe that moslems are the only people on here that have their religion used against them do you ???

Quill doesn't notice that kind of thing as a rule - when it's directed at anyone white and Christian.

Besides, he uses the term "white trash", so he's not in a position to say anything really.

VOD was missing the point on that one.

As far as 'white trash'...it's perfectly apt description. Would you rather I call them trailer park tramps?

by Guest Sat Oct 17, 2015 9:39 am

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Quill doesn't notice that kind of thing as a rule - when it's directed at anyone white and Christian.

Besides, he uses the term "white trash", so he's not in a position to say anything really.

VOD was missing the point on that one.

As far as 'white trash'...it's perfectly apt description. Would you rather I call them trailer park tramps?

so what about nigga??

i assume you feel its fair game to use it??

by Sponsored content