Thought-Provoking Billboards for Sam Harris Events Rejected in Australia

First topic message reminder :

Sam Harris will be speaking in Australia this January for a group called Think Inc., and advertising has already begun. The group created billboards featuring lines from some of Harris’ books… only to have them rejected for being too discriminatory.
Here are the billboards. Good luck trying to figure out who’s being discriminated against.

Our recent posters promoting the upcoming tour of An Evening with Sam Harris appear to have garnered a shortage of favour from APN Outdoor, who have refused to advertise a series of these posters as billboards. APN’s justification for this has been based on the perception that Think Inc. has violated section 2.1 of the Outdoor Media Association’s (OMA) code of ethics: “Advertisements shall not portray or depict material in a way which discriminates against or vilifies a person or section of the community on account of race, ethnicity, nationality, sex, age, sexual preference, religion, disability or political belief.”
While the Think Inc. team wholeheartedly acknowledges, appreciates and respects this section of the code of ethics, and agrees that all prospective companies seeking to advertise publicly should adhere to this code, we strongly disagree that our series of posters is in breach of it. We would like to publicly state that with them it is not at all our intention nor our mission to promote what has been perceived by APN as any kind of vilification, discrimination or bigotry towards any specific social group; what we do promote, however, is a rational and critical discourse of ideas, and the opening up of an intellectual dialogue that must be had.
To reject these posters is to censor free speech — pure and simple. Especially when other advertising agencies, such as Facebook, Google and Rock Posters have done so with no issue whatsoever.

I couldn’t agree more. What Harris said about Jesus is what Catholics actually believe. His other comments are either legitimate comments or fair questions. There’s no discrimination taking place. People are just uncomfortable having their sacred cows challenged.
Harris himself was surprised by the rejections, telling me this via email:

“Although I didn’t play any part in designing those billboards, it is fairly alarming that APN Outdoor feels that the public must be protected from them. I suppose I’ll have to go down there and tell them why they are wrong about this. I recommend that everyone eat a healthy serving of Jesus crackers before the event.”

Remember: These are topics that need to be addressed precisely because so many people prefer to avoid them entirely.


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/10/29/thought-provoking-billboards-for-sam-harris-events-rejected-in-australia/

Didge wrote:

sassy wrote:You can challenge what you like, but don't work on the assumption that your 'unbelief' is any more provable than their 'belief' is, or that you don't sound just as fanatical as they do, or that your 'teachers' are any better.

My unbelief has nothing to do with challenging beliefs that effect others, what is important is when you defend those beliefs out of a misguided belief, which i once did also. It achieves nothing but actually helps those religious beliefs be valid.
Religions need to progress with time and if they do not then everyone that has a decent bone in their body should challenge them, not protect them,
So if I am fanatical to help save people from discrmination, then so be it, I would rather be called a fanatic that helped stop prejudice discrmination beliefs that have no evidence that were formed from books written by men centuries ago.
Again I would never deny anyone their equal rights under law, but I will not stand idle when beliefs taught effect the well being and equality of others.

So,you're trying to "save" people?
Perhaps they don't want to be saved.

sassy wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

sassy wrote:What worries me about the new anti-theist movement, and that is what it is, is that they don't realise they are now sounding exactly as strident as any fervent believer and follower of any faith.  Their 'teacher' be it Harris, Dawkins or any of the others, are leading them by the nose just as much as any priest, padre, iman does.

As for it promoting peace, it's gone way beyond that.  Harris actually says 'Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them” Sam Harris, The End of Faith, pp.52-53.   Both Harris and Dawkins agreed with Bush and Blair, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan, but apparently 'religion' has done that, not the neo-con ideas that they espose to.


Anti-theists are just as judgemental, just as irrational about religion, as any religion is.

Spot on Sassy.

The OP could quite easily be HF quoting bible verses. Not sure what I love more, that irony or the fact that these new atheists cannot spot the irony.

Absolutely agree.

Agree too

veya_victaous wrote:

sassy wrote:

Absolutely agree.

Agree too

Agree three

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was quoted in Anders Breivik's manifesto as someone who inspired him and of course he went on to brutaly murder innocent children in Norway.
These new atheists have no thouight for the people that they may inspire to go on and commit these crimes.
Her interview in Reason displays views that Islam should be erradicated militarily if need be like wiping out millions of Muslims.

Read it for yourself....

https://reason.com/archives/2007/10/10/the-trouble-is-the-west/1

It's a pity that she came out with that because she does do some good work with her foundation fighting against FGM etc.

I'm sure many people would willingly give up their organs or those of a relative to save another childs life but when it gets to the stage where the dead bodies are handed to the state to take control and harvest all the parts then that is a completely different matter. And after all the parts have been removed I suppose the remains would be handed back to the grieving relatives to arrange the funeral. It's no better that grave-robbing Burke and Hare style.

And how would this be controlled? Who would get priority for the best bits? Would it be part of the NHS or would it be priavatised with those who have the money jumping the queue to get there first and have it done quicker?

It's abhorrent and macabre and might go down well in North Korea but not in any civilized society.

Eddie, you did compare rape and murder. Just because you didn't say one was worse you still compared them. In my opinion you under appreciate the horror of murder by saying its no worse than rape.

The rest of this thread is hysterics. By people who have never read Harris or Dawkins and probably never watched them speak in their entirety.

Remember, new atheists don't kill people, religious fundamentalists kill people. Anyone who suggests they are same is monster who trivialises the deaths of victims of 9/11, 7/7 and many thousands of people in the developing world.

New atheists, Dawkins, Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are advocating killing thousands all the time, especially Harris and Ali.  Soon people will start doing it for them.   And I have read some of them, until I felt like throwing it across the room.  However, Dawkins goes off about Islam and then admits he has never read the Q'ran.

[quote="sassy"]New atheists, Dawkins, Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are advocating killing thousands all the time, especially Harris and Ali.  Soon people will start doing it for them.   And I have read some of them, until I felt like throwing it across the room.  However, Dawkins goes off about Islam and then admits he has never read the Q'ran.[/quote

Give me a direct quote where Dawkins or Harris directly advocates murdering thousands of people, Sassy.

It's in the thread Les, the quote from Harris, and Ali.  Dawkins agreed with the invasion of Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands and is also a supporter of Ali.  Irn gave her quote, I gave Harris's.

Sam Harris is not smart enough to be an atheist
Unless he is an atheist because of his Pure faith in sciences that he doesn't understand.

people can do/be that i have no problem with that, but then they should not be getting up on a podium... Sam is the proof that getting rid of religion would not change a thing, men like him will still promote a new crusade. they will still call from the pulpits for action against those they are against.

And Again I am drawn back to the lessons of the dreamtime.... man is but an animal why should I expect him to behave otherwise, like ants and termites in their eternal wars

Eilzel wrote:

sassy wrote:New atheists, Dawkins, Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are advocating killing thousands all the time, especially Harris and Ali.  Soon people will start doing it for them.   And I have read some of them, until I felt like throwing it across the room.  However, Dawkins goes off about Islam and then admits he has never read the Q'ran.[/quote

Give me a direct quote where Dawkins or Harris directly advocates murdering thousands of people, Sassy.

Here's Harris's one:  Harris actually says 'Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them” Sam Harris, The End of Faith, pp.52-53

He also supports Ali, was doing it today on twitter, and her quote is above in Irn's post.  She advocates wiping out Muslims by military means, and inspired Breivik.

Eilzel wrote:Eddie, you did compare rape and murder. Just because you didn't say one was worse you still compared them. In my opinion you under appreciate the horror of murder by saying its no worse than rape.

The rest of this thread is hysterics. By people who have never read Harris or Dawkins and probably never watched them speak in their entirety.

Remember, new atheists don't kill people, religious fundamentalists kill people. Anyone who suggests they are same is monster who trivialises the deaths of victims of 9/11, 7/7 and many thousands of people in the developing world.

Well that's true of me to an extent Les but my view is really quite simple. If people want to believe there is a god and they take comfort from that in moments of grief or otherwise then that's fine by me. It doesn't bother me one little bit. It's the extremists and the nutjobs that are the problem when really the vast majority of those who have religious beliefs have no truck with killing, maiming or bombing anyone.

By all means speak out against religious exremists and condemn them but leave others to worship who they want - it's their right.

sassy wrote:It's in the thread Les, the quote from Harris, and Ali.  Dawkins agreed with the invasion of Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands and is also a supporter of Ali.  Irn gave her quote, I gave Harris's.

Agreeing with an invasion that you had nothing to do with is not the same as directly advocating the murder of thousands of people. And that is one example of one war, which although wrong imo (see Zack, disagreement, dare you to disagree with your beloved Allah (pmsl), was an extension of the war on terror.

Is that all you have?

Want me to start posting incitements to murder from religionists and see how they compare?

Eilzel wrote:

sassy wrote:It's in the thread Les, the quote from Harris, and Ali.  Dawkins agreed with the invasion of Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands and is also a supporter of Ali.  Irn gave her quote, I gave Harris's.

Agreeing with an invasion that you had nothing to do with is not the same as directly advocating the murder of thousands of people. And that is one example of one war, which although wrong imo (see Zack, disagreement, dare you to disagree with your beloved Allah (pmsl), was an extension of the war on terror.

Is that all you have?

Want me to start posting incitements to murder from religionists and see how they compare?

I did put this a few posts up:

'Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them” Sam Harris, The End of Faith, pp.52-53

sassy wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Here's Harris's one:  Harris actually says 'Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them” Sam Harris, The End of Faith, pp.52-53

He also supports Ali, was doing it today on twitter, and her quote is above in Irn's post.  She advocates wiping out Muslims by military means, and inspired Breivik.

And believing al-Qaeda and ISIS should be wiped out isn't ethical? Because that is what he is talking about. As I said, quoting out of context. I won't reply to any further quotes which are not taken as meant.

^Irn. I would love to think as you do. But the collateral body count as a result of simply respecting all religious belief (specifically Abrahamic) is too high for me to do so. If it stops religious extremism I'd happily end all religion.

Irn Bru wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Eddie, you did compare rape and murder. Just because you didn't say one was worse you still compared them. In my opinion you under appreciate the horror of murder by saying its no worse than rape.

The rest of this thread is hysterics. By people who have never read Harris or Dawkins and probably never watched them speak in their entirety.

Remember, new atheists don't kill people, religious fundamentalists kill people. Anyone who suggests they are same is monster who trivialises the deaths of victims of 9/11, 7/7 and many thousands of people in the developing world.

Well that's true of me to an extent Les but my view is really quite simple. If people want to believe there is a god and they take comfort from that in moments of grief or otherwise then that's fine by me.  It doesn't bother me one little bit. It's the extremists and the nutjobs that are the problem when really the vast majority of those who have religious beliefs have no truck with killing, maiming or bombing anyone.

By all means speak out against religious exremists and condemn them but leave others to worship who they want - it's their right.

Gave you a greenie, exactly what I think.

Not so out of context Les, think this covers faster than I could get my thoughts round quickly:

The context of the sentence and here it is on pages 52 and 53 of his book The End of Faith (2004).

The power that belief has over our emotional lives appears to be total. For every emotion that you are capable of feeling, there is surely a belief that could invoke it in a matter of moments.
Consider the following proposition:

Your daughter is being slowly tortured in an English jail.

What is it that stands between you and the absolute panic that such a proposition would loose in the mind and body of a person who believed it? Perhaps you do not have a daughter, or you know her to be safely at home, or you believe that English jailors are renowned for their congeniality. Whatever the reason, the door to belief has not yet swung upon its hinges.
The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them [My italics-MS]. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others [My italics-MS]. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.

Notice that he seems to be advocating killing people for merely having certain thoughts, not for taking active steps to carry out the intent of thoughts so as to make them an imminent danger to others, the usual standard we use to justify killing in self-defense. He also says a little earlier that “Beliefs are principles of action (p. 52, italics in original) and seems to think that at least some beliefs lead inexorably to actions based on those beliefs, so having the belief is sufficient cause for summary execution.
I simply cannot see any way of interpreting that passage to make it seem any less horrific.
The question is who decides which beliefs and people are worthy of this pre-emptive summary justice. One suspects that Harris thinks it would be people like him, of course, since he clearly sees himself as an enlightened man who is an expert on ethical behavior. One gets the impression reading Harris that he would be the worst kind of dictator, so sure of the rightness of his own judgments and moral goodness that he would make life or death decisions about others and not have the slightest qualms. He reminds me of leaders of religions who are so sure that they are doing god’s will that they commit monstrous acts without turning a hair.
In fact someone might argue, using Harris’s own argument, that beliefs such as Harris holds are so dangerous that it is sufficient grounds for summarily executing him in order to prevent him ever attaining the ability to carry them out. Of course, Harris says that if such dangerous people can be captured, that would be better, so maybe he should be captured and thus kept from acting on his belief that he has the duty to kill others for their dangerous beliefs.
Of course, the people who believe that Harris should be captured or killed simply because of his beliefs are themselves the holders of dangerous beliefs, so yet others may think they should be captured or killed before they get at Harris before he gets at the people he thinks are dangerous.
And yet others may think … Well, you get the idea. Once you accept the idea of pre-emptive punishment for merely having thoughts, you set in motion an unending chain.
I had somehow not been aware of this statement by Harris even though it was published in 2004, and it seems like I was not alone. People seem to have taken note somewhat later and it generated enough controversy around 2014 that Harris responded to it, saying “The fact that belief determines behavior is what makes certain beliefs so dangerous” which to me simply reinforces the problematic nature of the statement. While no one would deny that beliefs influence behavior, surely they do not determine them? Even in a strictly deterministic view that denies free will, our conscious and articulated beliefs are just one part of the driving forces behind our actions. People have all sorts of conscious beliefs that they do not act upon.
Harris often responds to his critics by accusing them of either not understanding his views or of deliberately distorting them. Last year, Robert Wright had a good response to Harris, saying that he is either a muddled thinker or a muddled writer.

OK, so Harris thinks al-Zawahiri should be killed because of his beliefs “about jihad, martyrdom, the ascendancy of Islam, etc.” I’m not sure if holding just one of these beliefs is supposed to warrant the death penalty, or if all of them are required (including whatever the “etc.” covers), or what. Still, I think I get the basic idea. And it leaves me with a question:
If we come across a private diary, and in it some guy has written, “I agree with al-Zawahiri on jihad, martyrdom, the ascendancy of Islam, etc.,” we should kill him? Even if he has no plans to hurt us, or to help al-Zawahiri, or even to communicate his opinion to anyone else? If Harris really holds that it’s the beliefs that merit the death penalty, then, so far as I can tell, he has to answer that question in the affirmative.
The only way I can imagine Harris trying to wriggle out of a “yes” answer would be to reply that if this guy really believed everything al-Zawahiri believes, he wouldn’t sit there idly and innocuously; he’d do the kinds of things al-Zawahiri does.
But this just underscores how unnecessary it is, when deciding whether to kill al-Zawahiri, to get into the question of beliefs in the first place. After all, al-Zawahiri has done things that make it clear he’s an enemy. Specifically: He has chosen to lead a group that has attacked us and that continues to try to attack us. Leading a group is a behavior, not a belief. So in order to justify treating al-Zawahiri as a mortal enemy, we don’t have to get into the question of his doctrinal beliefs at all; we can safely infer an intent to harm from his behavioral history.
And given what a dangerous precedent it is to embrace killing people for their beliefs, shouldn’t we just stick with behavior as the criterion? That would be simpler, right? Plus, it would have the virtue of minimizing the overlap between our belief system and the belief system of people whose beliefs Harris thinks warrant the death penalty.
…
Anyway, this is what I meant by “muddled.” IMHO, Harris has a tendency not to think things through, especially when he’s making dramatic pronouncements, and careful thought might inconveniently short-circuit them.

I am a little late to this controversy but it further cements my view that Harris promotes some truly weird and reprehensible ideas.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/singham/2015/10/09/sam-harris-on-killing-people-for-thought-crimes/

Eilzel wrote:

sassy wrote:



Here's Harris's one:  Harris actually says 'Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them” Sam Harris, The End of Faith, pp.52-53

He also supports Ali, was doing it today on twitter, and her quote is above in Irn's post.  She advocates wiping out Muslims by military means, and inspired Breivik.

And believing al-Qaeda and ISIS should be wiped out isn't ethical? Because that is what he is talking about. As I said, quoting out of context. I won't reply to any further quotes which are not taken as meant.

^Irn. I would love to think as you do. But the collateral body count as a result of simply respecting all religious belief (specifically Abrahamic) is too high for me to do so. If it stops religious extremism I'd happily end all religion.

If no one acted on simplification of religious quotes then there woudl be no issue with religion.
Every SINGLE person that has ever killed in the name of Jesus has done so because they have listened to a demagogue quote him out of context. If Jesus Can't Rely on that excuse either can Sam.

It will not change the body count anyway
man is an animal that kills for resources

it is not 'religion' but the 'institutions' that have lead men to war. commies, red terror and all the rest... religion is the excuse when convenient when it is not, another excuse will be found. smart men can always find a way to convince the less astute to kill for them, it is harder to convince them to die but they still manage to do that often enough too. 

Just a point that was made and then dropped again on this thread, it's never right to just go and help yourself to someone's liver or corneas or kneecaps.

It's not a free-for-all.
Dead people are not easy pickings.

eddie wrote:Just a point that was made and then dropped again on this thread, it's never right to just go and help yourself to someone's liver or corneas or kneecaps.

It's not a free-for-all.
Dead people are not easy pickings.

That's true eddie and anyone who promotes the view that the state should take care of dead bodies to harvest the body parts and hand back the remains is extremely worrying.

Bodies do not belong to the state.

Eilzel wrote:

sassy wrote:It's in the thread Les, the quote from Harris, and Ali.  Dawkins agreed with the invasion of Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands and is also a supporter of Ali.  Irn gave her quote, I gave Harris's.

Agreeing with an invasion that you had nothing to do with is not the same as directly advocating the murder of thousands of people. And that is one example of one war, which although wrong imo (see Zack, disagreement, dare you to disagree with your beloved Allah (pmsl), was an extension of the war on terror.

Is that all you have?

Want me to start posting incitements to murder from religionists and see how they compare?

You're comparing Dawkins and Harris to God. I think that says a lot about what you think about these human beings. BAH!

Irn Bru wrote:I'm sure many people would willingly give up their organs or those of a relative to save another childs life but when it gets to the stage where the dead bodies are handed to the state to take control and harvest all the parts then that is a completely different matter. And after all the parts have been removed I suppose the remains would be handed back to the grieving relatives to arrange the funeral. It's no better that grave-robbing Burke and Hare style.

And how would this be controlled? Who would get priority for the best bits? Would it be part of the NHS or would it be priavatised with those who have the money jumping the queue to get there first and have it done quicker?

It's abhorrent and macabre and might go down well in North Korea but not in any civilized society.

As per usual you say it is wrong and offer no reason to say why it is wrong when the body is dead it has no use left and to deny saving people lives is a crimes.
Its times idiots like you that have some daft view of the dead body gave over this when it can be used to save people.

Also I see the lets defend the barbarity of religion brigade is out in force tonight, you know the same people who defend against homophobia and now make hypocrities of themselves by defending the very thing that stands against homosexuals.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Agreeing with an invasion that you had nothing to do with is not the same as directly advocating the murder of thousands of people. And that is one example of one war, which although wrong imo (see Zack, disagreement, dare you to disagree with your beloved Allah (pmsl), was an extension of the war on terror.

Is that all you have?

Want me to start posting incitements to murder from religionists and see how they compare?

You're comparing Dawkins and Harris to God. I think that says a lot about what you think about these human beings.  BAH!

And you have not answered a single point why within your religion the easist and most glorified way into its claim to heaven is to sacrifice humans?

Irn Bru wrote:

eddie wrote:Just a point that was made and then dropped again on this thread, it's never right to just go and help yourself to someone's liver or corneas or kneecaps.

It's not a free-for-all.
Dead people are not easy pickings.

That's true eddie and anyone who promotes the view that the state should take care of dead bodies to harvest the body parts and hand back the remains is extremely worrying.

Bodies do not belong to the state.

So those in need of life saving organs are secondary to the dead to you then?

Didge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

eddie wrote:Just a point that was made and then dropped again on this thread, it's never right to just go and help yourself to someone's liver or corneas or kneecaps.

It's not a free-for-all.
Dead people are not easy pickings.

That's true eddie and anyone who promotes the view that the state should take care of dead bodies to harvest the body parts and hand back the remains is extremely worrying.

Bodies do not belong to the state.

So those in need of life saving organs are secondary to the dead to you then?

Just hand the dead over to the state Didge and deal with what you get back.

It's ridiculous.

No its not you would rather the living who need them suffer all based off some ridiculous view you have over the dead body.
When its dead its of no further use to that human and will decompose.
It can however be of use to the living, those who need vital organs, where their own are failing.

If people I have loved and who died had been returned to me with parts of them missing without permission, I would have found the bastards and taken their body parts without anaesthetic.

Didge wrote:No its not you would rather the living who need them suffer all based off some ridiculous view you have over the dead body.
When its dead its of no further use to that human and will decompose.
It can however be of use to the living, those who need vital organs, where their own are failing.

Should we process them for food as well?

Make no mistake, you would condenm Mandella and Sgt Blackman to be cut up for their organs.

What does it matter, when that body is going to decompose anyway?
Its time you got over your daft reasoning because it is idiots like you that stops people having vital organs they need to survive.
The body parts of the dead are of no use to that dead person anymore, its time you got that in your thick skull

No permission needed or required over your loved one's bodies.  Complete totalitarianism, the biggest and most final loss of all freedom.


Totalitarianism is a concept used by some political scientists in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible. - and you can't get more private than what happens to your own body.


Didge had better move to North Korea



The word required, that he is ignoring is PERMISSION.

Just repeating yourself sassy offering no argument against live saving organs


In other words you care more for the dead than the living

Maybe the state shouldn't forcibly take organs. But people should be strongly encouraged to allow this when they die.

Didge wrote:What does it matter, when that body is going to decompose anyway?
Its time you got over your daft reasoning because it is idiots like you that stops people having vital organs they need to survive.
The body parts of the dead are of no use to that dead person anymore, its time you got that in your thick skull

I've already said that most poeple would willing give up vital organs if it meant saving another child.

Yoi want to make it mandatory and put under the control of the state.

You're a right wee Commie right enough - Comrad Didge

Yes it should be mandatory, without a shadow of a doubt

As lives can be saved

Didge wrote:Yes it should be mandatory, without a shadow of a doubt

As lives can be saved

State control Didge. You are a Commie after all. Emigrate to North Korea where you will be welcomed with open arms.

Who gets the best bits and who controls all this and how much will people have to pay?

Ah more usual inane drivel from the idiot left wing extremist

I am taking about countless lives being saved, where those whos organs cn be of use, can be utilized.
If you cannot understand that, then you are as thick as I thought you were. You would rather the living suffer all due to some idiotic view you have over the dead

Get over the fact when the body is dead, its of no use anymore to that individual

Didge wrote:Ah more usual inane drivel from the idiot left wing extremist

I am taking about countless lives being saved, where those whos organs cn be of use, can be utilized.
If you cannot understand that, then you are as thick as I thought you were. You would rather the living suffer all due to some idiotic view you have over the dead

Get over the fact when the body is dead, its of no use anymore to that individual

Answer my question Comrad or consult your new found hero

Oh dear I see the hamas supporter has no answer as per usual and is let with his immature idiocy.

lol what a twat

A thick jock of a twat at that

Didge wrote:Oh dear I see the hamas supporter has no answer as per usual and is let with his immature idiocy.

lol what a twat

A thick jock of a twat at that

Answer my question on who control all this a the body parts factory.

And be careful that your xenephobic and racist qualities don't rear ther ugly head again. You do that when you get angry and emotional.

Oh shut up you twat of a jock, I will say what I like to you as you are an idiot.
The question is for you, would you rathert the living suffer over your stupid views of the dead?

Simple question you have repeatedly avoided

when the body is dead, its of no use anymore to that individual

 True, but what of the people that loved them?


I support 'organ harvesting' (as a temporary measure until cybernetics become more cost effective) although I acknowledge that there is a lot of ethical bridges that need building before it can be reality. I do strongly believe that it must be either Voluntary or Universal it cannot be "this sort of people" get harvested these ones get a choice, all or nothing, everyone gets a choice or no one gets a choice.

Eilzel wrote:Maybe the state shouldn't forcibly take organs. But people should be strongly encouraged to allow this when they die.

Of course people should be encouraged; I'm a massive believer in organ donation
And not "maybe" - the should NOT forcibly take organs.
It's disgusting.

Didge wrote:Oh shut up you twat of a jock, I will say what I like to you as you are an idiot.
The question is for you, would you rathert the living suffer over your stupid views of the dead?

Simple question you have repeatedly avoided

You realise that your use of the word "jock" shows you up for what you are?

A closet racist.

It all comes out when you're angry doesn't it?

I've reported this post so that another admin can deal,with it, due to my supped "biased" nature toward you.

eddie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Maybe the state shouldn't forcibly take organs. But people should be strongly encouraged to allow this when they die.

Of course people should be encouraged; I'm a massive believer in organ donation
And not "maybe" - the should NOT forcibly take organs.
It's disgusting.

Its just you having some wierd view of the dead body.
Look its dead, its not forcing either, if it becomes acceptable to use the body parts to save lives. How many more times does this need saying that countless lives could be saved and all people can respond with is that they thinks its disgusting without providing a satisfactory explantion as to why.
The body is dead, is going to decompose and the organs will then be useless, so to not use them is the real crime, when lives could be saved.

eddie wrote:

Didge wrote:Oh shut up you twat of a jock, I will say what I like to you as you are an idiot.
The question is for you, would you rathert the living suffer over your stupid views of the dead?

Simple question you have repeatedly avoided

You realise that your use of the word "jock" shows you up for what you are?

A closet racist.

It all comes out when you're angry doesn't it?

I've reported this post so that another admin can deal,with it, due to my supped "biased" nature toward you.

Boring.
Move on, just because you are still upset is your issue
Jock is the name given to the Black Watch and used by many Scots, so are they all now racist.
Grow up and move on because ytour bitterness is boring now.

Didge wrote:Oh shut up you twat of a jock, I will say what I like to you as you are an idiot.
The question is for you, would you rathert the living suffer over your stupid views of the dead?

Simple question you have repeatedly avoided

If we all lived our lives according to your Didge Doctrine,we'd all be dead anyway.

I'm just waiting for you to suggest that the first borne of every family be taken away for human harvesting because it's the 'necessary' thing to do.

You should stop taking those science fiction stories so seriously.

Didge your post was racist:'you referred to a fellow poster by an offensive term.
Don't you wish to stamp out racism?

It is against the rules and I know you like people to stick to the rules

it's been reported.

Did you miss this Eddie or are you proving you have a vendeatta againstg me and further compremising you have lost the plot and the ability to moderate?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:[Lol! Did I force you to change your mobile number? HA HA!
No wonder you're so upset. Fair play.
Not to mention all that prostitute business your mother must have lost. I am sorry.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t12136-israel-want-to-look-through-the-eyes-of-a-terrorist#238673

eddie wrote:Didge your post was racist:'you referred to a fellow poster by an offensive term.
Don't you wish to stamp out racism?

It is against the rules and I know you like people to stick to the rules

it's been reported.

So you are saying the Black watch who call themselves Jocks asd racists?

Go away you pathetic immature child, they know I am not being racist, this is just you continuing to throw your dummy out and to be honest you really are showing yourself up now and that is the last I will say on the matter because you are just being a child

I do not care that you have reported.

eddie wrote:Didge your post was racist:'you referred to a fellow poster by an offensive term.
Don't you wish to stamp out racism?

It is against the rules and I know you like people to stick to the rules

it's been reported.

Eddie while we're on that subject,Cachulin has been calling me a Cornish country bumpkin just recently,which I find mortally offensive.......I'm actually outraged.

It's a derogatory slur specifically said to cause offence.Can you report that as well please?