My Mistake

by Major Mon Dec 28, 2015 7:25 pm

First topic message reminder :

My Mistake - Page 3 Screen%20Shot%202015-12-28%20at%2019.01.34_zps1tl2phyu

by Guest Wed Dec 30, 2015 10:56 pm

Wrong again Victor

If the women believes the husband can beat her and force herself onto her, then is not then the law able to intervene?
That is a belief that is banneed through the laws on domestic violence and marital rape

So no butt kicked you just being ignorant of the law.

by Guest Wed Dec 30, 2015 10:58 pm

Lord Foul wrote:Didge...in your new found liberosity let me give you a word or two to the wise, cos you is gettin your butt kicked here

1) you CANT, quite literally cant ban a belief
for 2 reasons

firstly its been tried many times, and failed....you can EVEN wipe out all its adherents and yet years, centuries down the line someone finds the artefacts of that belief ...and starts it up again...
and coupled to this point a man may well SAY he believes one thing publicly, and yet actually practice something entirely different privately

secondly you would fall foul of liberatrian thought in other areas...

HRA for instance...and the right to personal and private belief....

As to clothing...again you CANNOT enforce (beyond a certain point and on certain very specific grounds) a dress code. Even the concept of such a thing (again except on VERY specific grounds) is moraly dubious, I mean ,,,where do you draw the line? and just who? decides where that line will be?

by all means remove the face covering in public....that I think would be justifiable and gain support.
by all means perhaps seek to make such items of clothing "socially unacceptable " (like smoking around kids)

by all means make abuse by the imposition of religious standards an agravating factor (good luck on prooving that though)

but you are letting your new found libertarian lusts run away with you....

libertarian, should not be found on the same page as the word "impose" you do realise that dont you

the worst imposition on anyone is that which is enforced "for their own good" by someone "not in their shoes"

Which shows you did not read a word I said to ben

I shall await your humble pie

As at no point anywhere did i conflict on liberal views

Again I will answer before I go.
If the women believes the husband can beat her and force herself onto her, then is not then the law able to intervene?
That is a belief where the law has to intervene because the belief is wrong and denies her seeking the law to protect her rights.
Jesus wept

For the seond point, read back to what I said to irn as to what is the best way forward.

Here is what I said

What should we do, work with Muslim leaders to show it is not islamic.
Have it that it is banned for use in public places for recognition, as at present this discrminates that others cannot cover their identity. This not only protects a potential victim of attack having their own face recognised but also prevents those using to commit crimes.

Which I will add

Also that brainless lefities understand that they need to also challenged bad beliefs, not defend them and thus encourage them to continue

Right now I am going, there is only so much inane drivel I can stomach for one evening off clueless lefties

by Ben Reilly Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:04 pm

You're getting really tedious, Didge. Laws against rape and abuse don't criminalize having the belief that they can be done with impunity -- they criminalize rape and abuse.

by Guest Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:05 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:You're getting really tedious, Didge. Laws against rape and abuse don't criminalize having the belief that they can be done with impunity -- they criminalize rape and abuse.

What do you mean 'getting'? Twisted Evil

by Victorismyhero Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:06 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Wrong again Victor

If the women believes the husband can beat her and force herself onto her, then is not then the law able to intervene?

If the woman truely beleives that her husband has that right, and submits to that then there is nothing the law can do....thats a FACT....since she is unlikely to make or support any complaint...
in fact...that situation is absolutely comparable to the situation in BDSM and the willing masochist

only IF the beating causes severe or permanent damage could the husband be prosecuted independantly

this is something that needs to be tackled by education of course....NOT by BANNING a "belief"

That is a belief that is banneed through the laws on domestic violence and marital rape

hint ...it is neither domestic violence OR rape....unless the woman says it is

So no butt kicked you just being ignorant of the law.

OHHH YES ...BEAT ME BEAT ME YOU SEXY THING

by Guest Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:06 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:You're getting really tedious, Didge. Laws against rape and abuse don't criminalize having the belief that they can be done with impunity -- they criminalize rape and abuse.

Oh pipe down peewee.
Understand why such laws were introdcued.
The fact is a women can think a husband has a religious right to beat her, and if a doctor notices brusies to her body and contacts the Police, then the Police have to intervene on that belief, where the woman is not believing she has rights of protection, when she fundementally does.
That is a case of a belief that is fundementally banned in the area off the actual victim.

by Guest Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:08 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:Wrong again Victor

If the women believes the husband can beat her and force herself onto her, then is not then the law able to intervene?

If the woman truely beleives that her husband has that right, and submits to that then there is nothing the law can do....thats a FACT....since she is unlikely to make or support any complaint...
in fact...that situation is absolutely comparable to the situation in BDSM and the willing masochist

only IF the beating causes severe or permanent damage could the husband be prosecuted independantly

this is something that needs to be tackled by education of course....NOT by BANNING a "belief"

That is a belief that is banneed through the laws on domestic violence and marital rape

hint ...it is neither domestic violence OR rape....unless the woman says it is

So no butt kicked you just being ignorant of the law.

OHHH YES ...BEAT ME BEAT ME YOU SEXY THING

by Guest Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:08 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:Wrong again Victor

If the women believes the husband can beat her and force herself onto her, then is not then the law able to intervene?

If the woman truely beleives that her husband has that right, and submits to that then there is nothing the law can do....thats a FACT....since she is unlikely to make or support any complaint...
in fact...that situation is absolutely comparable to the situation in BDSM and the willing masochist

only IF the beating causes severe or permanent damage could the husband be prosecuted independantly

this is something that needs to be tackled by education of course....NOT by BANNING a "belief"

That is a belief that is banneed through the laws on domestic violence and marital rape

hint ...it is neither domestic violence OR rape....unless the woman says it is

So no butt kicked you just being ignorant of the law.

OHHH YES ...BEAT ME BEAT ME YOU SEXY THING

Then again you are very much mistaken, if that a friend or a doctor saw evidence that could be deemed as domestic violence then again the law can intervene even if she believees her husband can
Sorry chum, you are out on a limb here as this is very much two beliefs banned by law and done so to protect the rights of women, even if they do not believe them through their faith

by Victorismyhero Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:16 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

Then again you are very much mistaken, if that a friend or a doctor saw evidence that could be deemed as domestic violence then again the law can intervene even if she believees her husband can

wrong didge......she can refuse to file a complaint. refuse to support a complaint and /or even lie to refute the complaint...
and if she beleives and continues to belive her husband has that right there is f**k all anyone can do.....

no one has ever been prosecuted on the evidence of a doctor or other professional merely saying "i think that............"
especially where the alleged victim is alive and saying otherwise

Sorry chum, you are out on a limb here as this is very much two beliefs banned by law and done so to protect the rights of women, even if they do not believe them through their faith

by Victorismyhero Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:18 pm

I mean...the prosecution would look a bit silly if it turned out that abdul and his missus were into BDSM and both got their kicks out of it wouldnt they....

sorta....oooops...and very red faces all round....

by Guest Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:19 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Then again you are very much mistaken, if that a friend or a doctor saw evidence that could be deemed as domestic violence then again the law can intervene even if she believees her husband can

wrong didge......she can refuse to file a complaint. refuse to support a complaint and /or even lie to refute the complaint...
and if she beleives and continues to belive her husband has that right there is f**k all anyone can do.....

no one has ever been prosecuted on the evidence of a doctor or other professional merely saying "i think that............"
especially where the alleged victim is alive and saying otherwise

Sorry chum, you are out on a limb here as this is very much two beliefs banned by law and done so to protect the rights of women, even if they do not believe them through their faith

But what if where she previously held the view they could and then after advise and councilling then knew it was illegal for her husband to do so whilst he was being charged.
So not wrong, you just are not able to think further afield that what you know,.
There is a reason both laws were designed and in many cases people have been afraid to come forward, it has taken others to help bring about justice for them
So no matter what you think both beliefs are banned through the laws on domextic violence and maritak rape

by Ben Reilly Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:22 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Then again you are very much mistaken, if that a friend or a doctor saw evidence that could be deemed as domestic violence then again the law can intervene even if she believees her husband can

wrong didge......she can refuse to file a complaint. refuse to support a complaint and /or even lie to refute the complaint...
and if she beleives and continues to belive her husband has that right there is f**k all anyone can do.....

no one has ever been prosecuted on the evidence of a doctor or other professional merely saying "i think that............"
especially where the alleged victim is alive and saying otherwise

Sorry chum, you are out on a limb here as this is very much two beliefs banned by law and done so to protect the rights of women, even if they do not believe them through their faith

But what if where she previously held the view they could and then after advise and councilling then knew it was illegal for her husband to do so whilst he was being charged.
So not wrong, you just are not able to think further afield that what you know,.
There is a reason both laws were designed and in many cases people have been afraid to come forward, it has taken others to help bring about justice for them
So no matter what you think both beliefs are banned through the laws on domextic violence and maritak rape

If Big Brother ever rises to power it will be people like you to blame ... pig

(whoops, wrong Orwell reference)

by Guest Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:23 pm

Anyway there are beliefs that have been banned

One, denial of the holocaust, is a belief that is banned in certain countries

by Guest Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:26 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

But what if where she previously held the view they could and then after advise and councilling then knew it was illegal for her husband to do so whilst he was being charged.
So not wrong, you just are not able to think further afield that what you know,.
There is a reason both laws were designed and in many cases people have been afraid to come forward, it has taken others to help bring about justice for them
So no matter what you think both beliefs are banned through the laws on domextic violence and maritak rape

If Big Brother ever rises to power it will be people like you to blame ... (whoops, wrong Orwell reference)

Based on nothing I said Ben?

You really are a right plonker

I never even stated to fully ban the burkha but in your haste of stupidity you now invent things.

It is my interpretation that two beliefs are banned by law and thank goodness that they are, domestic violence and marital rape

So it will not be down to people like me you dickhead, as again I fundementally believe in the equality of law.

Twat

by Victorismyhero Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:26 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

But what if where she previously held the view they could and then after advise and councilling then knew it was illegal for her husband to do so whilst he was being charged.

thats called "moving the goal posts"..... in THAT circumstance the obviously things are different again....
BUT you are as ben pointed out NOT banning the belief but the PRACTICE of that belief...a different thing

as ben said....he can believe his god wants him to roam about naked...fortunately for all of our eyes and sanity the law prevents him from practicing such a horrifying form of religious observance.

and more importantly as you are all too well aware, those who have "strong beliefs" are very resistant to any amount of councelling and advice. I would NOT pin any hopes on that any time soon....

So not wrong, you just are not able to think further afield that what you know,.
There is a reason both laws were designed and in many cases people have been afraid to come forward, it has taken others to help bring about justice for them
So no matter what you think both beliefs are banned through the laws on domextic violence and maritak rape

by Ben Reilly Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:26 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Anyway there are beliefs that have been banned

One, denial of the holocaust, is a belief that is banned in certain countries

Come off it! It's illegal to deny the holocaust, not to believe it didn't happen. You've got to learn the difference between actions and beliefs.

(Insert personal insult 1 here)

(Insert personal insult 2 here)

by Guest Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:29 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

But what if where she previously held the view they could and then after advise and councilling then knew it was illegal for her husband to do so whilst he was being charged.

thats called "moving the goal posts"..... in THAT circumstance the obviously things are different again....
BUT you are as ben pointed out NOT banning the belief but the PRACTICE of that belief...a different thing

as ben said....he can believe his god wants him to roam about naked...fortunately for all of our eyes and sanity the law prevents him from practicing such a horrifying form of religious observance.

and more importantly as you are all too well aware, those who have "strong beliefs" are very resistant to any amount of councelling and advice. I would NOT pin any hopes on that any time soon....

So not wrong, you just are not able to think further afield that what you know,.
There is a reason both laws were designed and in many cases people have been afraid to come forward, it has taken others to help bring about justice for them
So no matter what you think both beliefs are banned through the laws on domextic violence and maritak rape

Does not matter does it Victor as you well know, if that belief had hindered her from coming forward and its only when the Police intervened after others being concerned, then you can count that belief as being banned and only that she is aware that it is wrong for her husband to force himself on her or beat her.
Again its not me calling for any Bans, which you both seem to be stuck on, I am showing that in law with have such bans in effect.
So why is it the pair of you cannot understand anything in simplicity, as where did I actually call for any belief to be banned?
I never did which shows the desperation of people who know they are wrong on points

by Guest Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:30 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:Anyway there are beliefs that have been banned

One, denial of the holocaust, is a belief that is banned in certain countries

Come off it! It's illegal to deny the holocaust, not to believe it didn't happen. You've got to learn the difference between actions and beliefs.

(Insert personal insult 1 here)

(Insert personal insult 2 here)

Denying is still a belief, holding that belief and as soon as you express that belief, then the law intervenes

I never even said i support this ban either, but then you are one hell of a regressive twat

by Victorismyhero Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:38 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Does not matter does it Victor as you well know, if that belief had hindered her from coming forward and its only when the Police intervened after others being concerned, then you can count that belief as being banned and only that she is aware that it is wrong for her husband to force himself on her or beat her.

SIGH...I thought you understood this disconection between belief and reality didge....

she can be as aware as you like that its wrong (in law) for this to happen...but IF SHE BELIEVES that god thus ordered, all the awareness in the world isnt going to help is it?
dont forget the TRUE believer pays scant regard for ANY "man made law" that contradicts "gods law"

you forget the absolute square law relationship between religiosity and dumbness... the dumbness of a person rises as the square of the religiosity in other words D=R^2

Again its not me calling for any Bans, which you both seem to be stuck on, I am showing that in law with have such bans in effect.
So why is it the pair of you cannot understand anything in simplicity, as where did I actually call for any belief to be banned?
I never did which shows the desperation of people who know they are wrong on points

by Guest Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:39 pm

And once again before I do now go what I stated was my view as the best way to tackle this, not that the American wally can read it seems

What should we do, work with Muslim leaders to show it is not islamic.
Have it that it is banned for use in public places for recognition, as at present this discrminates that others cannot cover their identity. This not only protects a potential victim of attack having their own face recognised but also prevents those using to commit crimes.

Which I will add

Also that brainless lefities understand that they need to also challenged bad beliefs, not defend them and thus encourage them to continue.

Right night Victor

Ben, stop being a regressive twat

Thanks

by Guest Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:41 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:Anyway there are beliefs that have been banned

One, denial of the holocaust, is a belief that is banned in certain countries

Come off it! It's illegal to deny the holocaust, not to believe it didn't happen. You've got to learn the difference between actions and beliefs.

(Insert personal insult 1 here)

(Insert personal insult 2 here)

He must love you Ben, he only filled in one lol

by Guest Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:43 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Does not matter does it Victor as you well know, if that belief had hindered her from coming forward and its only when the Police intervened after others being concerned, then you can count that belief as being banned and only that she is aware that it is wrong for her husband to force himself on her or beat her.

SIGH...I thought you understood this disconection between belief and reality didge....

she can be as aware as you like that its wrong (in law) for this to happen...but IF SHE BELIEVES that god thus ordered, all the awareness in the world isnt going to help is it?
dont forget the TRUE believer pays scant regard for ANY "man made law" that contradicts "gods law"

you forget the absolute square law relationship between religiosity and dumbness... the dumbness of a person rises as the square of the religiosity in other words D=R^2

Again its not me calling for any Bans, which you both seem to be stuck on, I am showing that in law with have such bans in effect.
So why is it the pair of you cannot understand anything in simplicity, as where did I actually call for any belief to be banned?
I never did which shows the desperation of people who know they are wrong on points

Yes but man made law superscedes any mythical law.\
I get your point but I do feel on this aspect of the law, it does cross over and hence disagree with you that in effect you can then take up the rights of the abused.
Or it should be something we should be able to do.

Anway, all the best mate, its the lefty regressive support I cannot stomach as you well know, they would appease anything bad, as they think to challenge bad beliefs makes them somehow racist the dickheads

Night

by Victorismyhero Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:45 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

Come off it! It's illegal to deny the holocaust, not to believe it didn't happen. You've got to learn the difference between actions and beliefs.

(Insert personal insult 1 here)

(Insert personal insult 2 here)

Denying is still a belief, holding that belief and as soon as you express that belief, then the law intervenes

NOOOOOO.....denying would be an ACT based ON that belief....that you can ban...the belief however you CANT ban (since you cannot look inside someones head, nor , if you could would you be entitled to "erase" such ideas)

I never even said i support this ban either, but then you are one hell of a regressive twat

by Guest Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:46 pm

by Guest Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:46 pm

sassy wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

Come off it! It's illegal to deny the holocaust, not to believe it didn't happen. You've got to learn the difference between actions and beliefs.

(Insert personal insult 1 here)

(Insert personal insult 2 here)

He must love you Ben, he only filled in one lol

I was just mimicing your abuse to how you are to new posters.

Sorry Ben, I did not realise it was wrong to be abusive, I took my cue from sassy lol

Seriously love your hypocrisy is so massive we could all readh the moon off the back of it

Stop stirring, Ben is a big enough to defend for himself without you trying to turn everything into a fight

Grow the fuck up and apologise to Dragonfly

Ben no hard feelings its just a debate as you well know and will come down hard on bad views

by Guest Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:48 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Denying is still a belief, holding that belief and as soon as you express that belief, then the law intervenes

NOOOOOO.....denying would be an ACT based ON that belief....that you can ban...the belief however you CANT ban (since you cannot look inside someones head, nor , if you could would you be entitled to "erase" such ideas)

I never even said i support this ban either, but then you are one hell of a regressive twat

Victor you are fighting a losing battle. Didge's grasp of language is not up to the task of differing between actions and beliefs.

by Victorismyhero Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:48 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

Yes but man made law superscedes any mythical law.\
I get your point but I do feel on this aspect of the law, it does cross over and hence disagree with you that in effect you can then take up the rights of the abused.
Or it should be something we should be able to do.

Again ...I have to say NO.....we should not be able to "take up ther rights of ....."...

just how the devil would you tell whether it was indeed domestic abuse, or a good night on the old slap me orgasmic water bed???

thats just too intrusive

Anway, all the best mate, its the lefty regressive support I cannot stomach as you well know, they would appease anything bad, as they think to challenge bad beliefs makes them somehow racist the dickheads

Night

by Guest Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:49 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
sassy wrote:

He must love you Ben, he only filled in one lol

I was just mimicing your abuse to how you are to new posters.

Sorry Ben, I did not realise it was wrong to be abusive, I took my cue from sassy lol

Seriously love your hypocrisy is so massive we could all readh the moon off the back of it

Stop stirring, Ben is a big enough to defend for himself without you trying to turn everything into a fight

Grow the fuck up and apologise to Dragonfly

Ben no hard feelings its just a debate as you well know and will come down hard on bad views

by Guest Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:50 pm

sassy wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

Victor you are fighting a losing battle. Didge's grasp of language is not up to the task of differing between actions and beliefs.

Stirring again, and considering you offered nothing except appeasement to this subjucation of dress, you really are in no position to make any valid comment here.,

I took on board Victors views, which again it seems all that matters to you is your hateful stance of people

Now go back and apaologise to Dragonfly for your vile comments

by Guest Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:50 pm

sassy wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

I was just mimicing your abuse to how you are to new posters.

Sorry Ben, I did not realise it was wrong to be abusive, I took my cue from sassy lol

Seriously love your hypocrisy is so massive we could all readh the moon off the back of it

Stop stirring, Ben is a big enough to defend for himself without you trying to turn everything into a fight

Grow the fuck up and apologise to Dragonfly

Ben no hard feelings its just a debate as you well know and will come down hard on bad views

Great episode

Now go back and apologise

by Victorismyhero Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:51 pm

what would the girls on here do if I wasnt allowed to beat them with my big staff......

by Guest Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:52 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
sassy wrote:

Victor you are fighting a losing battle. Didge's grasp of language is not up to the task of differing between actions and beliefs.

Stirring again, and considering you offered nothing except appeasement to this subjucation of dress, you really are in no position to make any valid comment here.,

I took on board Victors views, which again it seems all that matters to you is your hateful stance of people

Now go back and apaologise to Dragonfly for your vile comments

Not a chance, she told me she was a prostitue and she is a racist bitch.

And I wasn't saying it to try and win an argument, I was saying it because she disgusts me.

Now, you were saying?

by Guest Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:53 pm

Lord Foul wrote:what would the girls on here do if I wasnt allowed to beat them with my big staff......

You really shouldn't refer to didge like that lol!

by Guest Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:54 pm

sassy wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Stirring again, and considering you offered nothing except appeasement to this subjucation of dress, you really are in no position to make any valid comment here.,

I took on board Victors views, which again it seems all that matters to you is your hateful stance of people

Now go back and apaologise to Dragonfly for your vile comments

Not a chance, she told me she was a prostitue and she is a racist bitch.

And I wasn't saying it to try and win an argument, I was saying it because she disgusts me.

Now, you were saying?

Well considering you have said vile things to all of us and we still put up with you, it shows your inability to move on which is not very good or helpful to ben is it, if that is your stance from the off, not only that you have no idea how she is today and thus going off the past is you being bitter

Grow the fuck up and apologiose

by Guest Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:57 pm

Oh dear where's the violin. If you are a shit (and you are) I tell you so. Hard luck. I don't tell you to win an argument. I tell you because what you are saying is revolting most of the time, as well as being poorly written inane drivel that wouldn't pass muster in a junior school.

by Guest Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:58 pm

Now are we going to have didge's version of the Walton's all night, or is he going to drag himself away, sit online as a guest and come back if he can't stand the suspense lol

by Guest Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:59 pm

sassy wrote:Oh dear where's the violin. If you are a shit (and you are) I tell you so. Hard luck. I don't tell you to win an argument. I tell you because what you are saying is revolting most of the time, as well as being poorly written inane drivel that wouldn't pass muster in a junior school.

Look, this is not always about you though you seem to think it is.
She has not even posted even though she was online and you have no idea how she is today and going off the past making her feel unwelcome is bang out of order.
You do not run this forum and have no right to be so nasty, it just proves how utterly bitter you are.
I never saw eye to eye with her but as ben will tell many are welcome here and you do not get to decide.

Grow the fuck up and apologise

by Guest Thu Dec 31, 2015 12:01 am

Unless she has done as much of a U-Turn as yourself, she will still be the revolting racist bitch she always was, which will mean you will see eye to eye with her now, so don't worry lol

And I have no intention of making her welcome, others are free to do so. Unlike you I'm not a hypocrite.

Now do try and drag yourself away otherwise The Waltons tune will be playing for ever and that would be very boring.

by Guest Thu Dec 31, 2015 12:04 am

sassy wrote:Unless she has done as much of a U-Turn as yourself, she will still be the revolting racist bitch she always was.

And I have no intention of making her welcome, others are free to do so. Unlike you I'm not a hypocrite.

Now do try and drag yourself away otherwise The Waltons tune will be playing for ever and that would be very boring.

Which just porves everything I have said about you and that you are so hateful of others, people you do not even know in real life.
I seriously pity you that you can be so hateful of others.
I do not hate you, I have no reason to, I hate some of your views, many of them, but I do not hate you, there is a big difference you cannot seem to comprehend.
You have the blackest heart.

Good night

by Guest Thu Dec 31, 2015 12:05 am

OK, now I have The Waltons tune running around in my head, and I don't even like it, so we'll swop to Goodbyee, you might even sod off then.

by Guest Thu Dec 31, 2015 12:08 am

See, told you, signed out but still sat there as a Guest hoping to pounce lol

by Victorismyhero Thu Dec 31, 2015 12:08 am

oh ffs

by Guest Thu Dec 31, 2015 12:10 am

LOL, he's so easy to wind up! It's sport Victor, especially at this time of night, he's always good for a laugh.

by Tommy Monk Thu Dec 31, 2015 3:38 am

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

If Big Brother ever rises to power it will be people like you to blame ... (whoops, wrong Orwell reference)

Based on nothing I said Ben?

You really are a right plonker

I never even stated to fully ban the burkha but in your haste of stupidity you now invent things.

It is my interpretation that two beliefs are banned by law and thank goodness that they are, domestic violence and marital rape

So it will not be down to people like me you dickhead, as again I fundementally believe in the equality of law.

Twat

Did you just sign off as 'twat'...! ?

lol!

Most amusing!!!

Laughing

by Raggamuffin Thu Dec 31, 2015 8:50 am

All this stuff about people being entitled to their own beliefs is a bit silly if you then say they're not entitled to actually voice those beliefs or act on them. If someone has a strong belief, of course they're going to tell people, and of course they're going to try to influence others by actions.

by Major Thu Dec 31, 2015 11:33 am

Raggamuffin wrote:All this stuff about people being entitled to their own beliefs is a bit silly if you then say they're not entitled to actually voice those beliefs or act on them. If someone has a strong belief, of course they're going to tell people, and of course they're going to try to influence others by actions.

Bang on TRUE Miss Ragga.

We all have our own strong beliefs, does anyone know someone who does not?.

by Raggamuffin Thu Dec 31, 2015 11:51 am

Stormee wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:All this stuff about people being entitled to their own beliefs is a bit silly if you then say they're not entitled to actually voice those beliefs or act on them. If someone has a strong belief, of course they're going to tell people, and of course they're going to try to influence others by actions.

Bang on TRUE Miss Ragga.

We all have our own strong beliefs, does anyone know someone who does not?.

Well a lot of people on here seem to have strong beliefs of one kind or another Stormee. If they were told to keep them to themselves and never mention them to another person, they'd be a bit pissed off. That's why distinguishing between having a belief and expressing it is a bit silly.

by Guest Thu Dec 31, 2015 12:36 pm

Really? There are many beliefs that would get you locked up if you expressed them. ie. in France if you deny the holocaust that's you in jail. You can't stop someone believing that it didn't happen though, no matter how disgusting that is.

You can believe that all members of a race should be killed, express it and you will rightfully be jailed for inciting violence.

by Raggamuffin Thu Dec 31, 2015 12:39 pm

sassy wrote:Really? There are many beliefs that would get you locked up if you expressed them. ie. in France if you deny the holocaust that's you in jail. You can't stop someone believing that it didn't happen though, no matter how disgusting that is.

That's my point. If someone didn't think the Holocaust happened, they're going to want to tell someone that aren't they?

Saying that people are entitled to their private beliefs is a pointless thing to say because it's so obvious - ie, nobody would know what their belief was anyway, and you can't take a thought out of someone's head.

by Guest Thu Dec 31, 2015 12:41 pm

That was the whole point that most were making Rags, that Didge didn't seem able to grasp. You can stop people saying something, you can't stop them thinking it.

by Sponsored content