Lily Allen Causes a Twitter Furore after apologising for the whole of the British people

by HoratioTarr Wed Oct 12, 2016 3:07 pm

First topic message reminder :

'I'm sorry for what we've put you through': Lily Allen apologises 'on behalf of my country' after breaking down in tears during a visit to the Jungle in Calais

The 31-year-old singer broke down in tears at one point during a meeting with a boy aged 13 from Afghanistan, who has risked his life trying to board UK-bound lorries.
The teenager, who said his father lives in Birmingham, has been camped at the Jungle on the edge of the northern French port city for two months.
During their meeting, Allen told him: ‘It just seems that at three different intervals in this young boy’s life, the English in particular have put you in danger.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3834170/I-m-sorry-ve-Lily-Allen-apologises-behalf-country-breaking-tears-visit-Jungle-Calais.html

by Victorismyhero Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:52 pm

that is a rather narrow definition....

the head of a cult can easiliy be seen as being "godlike" to its followers, and hence the practical effect is indistinguishable one from the other...

by Victorismyhero Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:54 pm

and moreover...one can soon go from cult leader to " god" in any case. Although i grant you that usually has the inconvenience of death as a prerequisite

by Guest Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:20 pm

Lord Foul wrote:that is a rather narrow definition....

the head of a cult can easiliy be seen as being "godlike" to its followers, and hence the practical effect is indistinguishable one from the other...

Cults are not theocracies - nor are cults particularly right or left wing.

The definition of theocracy is what it is:

"A form of government in which God (or a deity) is recognized as the king or immediate ruler, and his laws are taken as the statute-book of the kingdom, these laws being usually administered by a priestly order as his ministers and agents; hence (loosely) a system of government by a sacerdotal order, claiming a divine commission; also, a state so governed" (OED)

by Victorismyhero Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:32 pm

In which case it is perhaps a point that those countries that were effectively run by the christian church were in fact a sound example of a left wing theocracy since by any definition the social teachings of jesus were essentially communistic...

by Victorismyhero Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:38 pm

Ziz wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:that is a rather narrow definition....

the head of a cult can easiliy be seen as being "godlike" to its followers, and hence the practical effect is indistinguishable one from the other...

Cults are not theocracies -

By strict definition maybe not, but the PRACTICAL effect is indistinguishable AND it is dependant on the size and nature of the cult....a cult can become a religion (viz christianity) and thus potentially a theocracy

nor are cults particularly right or left wing.
and that is simply not true, It depends on how and in what manner the cult is governed

The definition of theocracy is what it is:

"A form of government in which God (or a deity) is recognized as the king or immediate ruler, and his laws are taken as the statute-book of the kingdom, these laws being usually administered by a priestly order as his ministers and agents; hence (loosely) a system of government by a sacerdotal order, claiming a divine commission; also, a state so governed" (OED)

by Guest Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:50 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Ziz wrote:

Cults are not theocracies -

By strict definition maybe not, but the PRACTICAL effect is indistinguishable AND it is dependant on the size and nature of the cult....a cult can become a religion (viz christianity) and thus potentially a theocracy

nor are cults particularly right or left wing.
and that is simply not true, It depends on how and in what manner the cult is governed

The definition of theocracy is what it is:

"A form of government in which God (or a deity) is recognized as the king or immediate ruler, and his laws are taken as the statute-book of the kingdom, these laws being usually administered by a priestly order as his ministers and agents; hence (loosely) a system of government by a sacerdotal order, claiming a divine commission; also, a state so governed" (OED)

A cult can become a religion (viz christianity) and thus potentially a theocracy.
Potentially yes - but that has little or no relevance in the context of this exchange.

nor are cults particularly right or left wing.
and that is simply not true, It depends on how and in what manner the cult is governed
Cults are generally not governed - but on the assumption that they are (for the sake of argument) then of course "it depends on how and in what manner the cult is governed" - that is precisely why cults are not particularly right or left wing, but can be either or none.

by Guest Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:53 pm

Lord Foul wrote:In which case it is perhaps a point that those countries that were effectively run by the christian church were in fact a sound example of a left wing theocracy since by any definition the social teachings of jesus were essentially communistic...

Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian - and with very few exceptions his views on property have been disregarded by Christianity.

by Victorismyhero Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:04 pm

Ziz wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:In which case it is perhaps a point that those countries that were effectively run by the christian church were in fact a sound example of a left wing theocracy since by any definition the social teachings of jesus were essentially communistic...

Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian - and with very few exceptions his views on property have been disregarded by Christianity.

but intentionally or not founded the (what was then) cult of christianity...with an (at the time) living leader.
and
not merely property since left/right is not entirely a property issue, but how even in the "bad old days of christianity they still taught "all men are equal" (at least in gods eyes)
and that one should "treat thy neighbour as thy self"

and that one should help the poor

(non of which of course are unreasonable...its purely a question of degree....)

of course...ultimately...

be you a king or a little street sweeper
sooner or later you dance with the reaper.....

by Tommy Monk Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:17 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
The Devil, You Know wrote:
except they are not

Of course they are! They're quite anti-feminist and anti-gay, they don't believe in freedom of expression, freedom of religion, multiculturalism, pacifism, representative democracy, or any of the other hallmarks of left-wing ideology.

Not hallmarks of left wing ideology... but mostly hallmarks of politically correct 'progressives' agenda...

by Guest Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:19 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Ziz wrote:

Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian - and with very few exceptions his views on property have been disregarded by Christianity.

but intentionally or not founded the (what was then) cult of christianity...with an (at the time) living leader.
and
not merely property since left/right is not entirely a property issue, but how even in the "bad old days of christianity they still taught "all men are equal" (at least in gods eyes)
and that one should "treat thy neighbour as thy self"

and that one should help the poor

(non of which of course are unreasonable...its purely a question of degree....)

of course...ultimately...

be you a king or a little street sweeper
sooner or later you dance with the reaper.....

Yes, whatever, you lost me at "but intentionally or not..." scratch

by Guest Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:23 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:

Of course they are! They're quite anti-feminist and anti-gay, they don't believe in freedom of expression, freedom of religion, multiculturalism, pacifism, representative democracy, or any of the other hallmarks of left-wing ideology.

Not hallmarks of left wing ideology... but mostly hallmarks of politically correct 'progressives' agenda...

How are freedom of expression, freedom of religion and a representative democracy hallmarks of a "politically correct 'progressives' agenda"?

Do the far-right wish to end these things? Lily Allen Causes a Twitter Furore after apologising for the whole of the British people - Page 4 2190311264

Lily Allen Causes a Twitter Furore after apologising for the whole of the British people - Page 4 2190311264

by Victorismyhero Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:24 pm

well...I would have thought it was obvious

did he intentionally set out to create a "cult " around himself

did he realise that the (to judaism) heretical teaching he was expounding, would result in a new religion entirely ?

(one of course could argue that as son of god and on a mission he did indeed know so but.....)

by Tommy Monk Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:25 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:

Of course they are! They're quite anti-feminist and anti-gay, they don't believe in freedom of expression, freedom of religion, multiculturalism, pacifism, representative democracy, or any of the other hallmarks of left-wing ideology.

erm may I point out that both stalin and the legacy therof and the stifleing regime in china are/were "left"

may I point out that pol pot was "left"

Saddam hussein and his baath party were 'left'... south American political leading dictators like castro and chavez 'left'...

by Guest Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:26 pm

Lord Foul wrote:well...I would have thought it was obvious

did he intentionally set out to create a "cult " around himself

did he realise that the (to judaism) heretical teaching he was expounding, would result in a new religion entirely ?

(one of course could argue that as son of god and on a mission he did indeed know so but.....)

No, he didn't on both counts - nor did he wish to establish a theocracy like far-right ISIS.

by Victorismyhero Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:29 pm

Ziz wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:well...I would have thought it was obvious

did he intentionally set out to create a "cult " around himself

did he realise that the (to judaism) heretical teaching he was expounding, would result in a new religion entirely ?

(one of course could argue that as son of god and on a mission he did indeed know so but.....)

No, he didn't on both counts - nor did he wish to establish a theocracy like far-right ISIS.

ah now we get somewhere

However .....those christians, who claimed to be following his teachings DID exactly that

by Guest Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:29 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Ziz wrote:

No, he didn't on both counts - nor did he wish to establish a theocracy like far-right ISIS.

ah now we get somewhere

However .....those christians, who claimed to be following his teachings DID exactly that

So what?

by Victorismyhero Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:34 pm

so...christs teachings were essentially communistic in nature
the following christians claimed to follow his teachings
they also established a theocracy as bad as (at least) as ISIS

therfor you have a bona fide leftwing theocracy

contrary to your assertion that theocracies are R/W

by Guest Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:36 pm

Lord Foul wrote:so...christs teachings were essentially communistic in nature
the following christians claimed to follow his teachings
they also established a theocracy as bad as (at least) as ISIS

therfor you have a bona fide leftwing theocracy

contrary to your assertion that theocracies are R/W

But they didn't follow his teachings - Constantine co-opted Christianity to unite the Roman Empire. Laughing

by Guest Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:38 pm

by Victorismyhero Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:38 pm

they "claimed" to

just as the theocracy of ISIS "claims" to follow islam....

Lily Allen Causes a Twitter Furore after apologising for the whole of the British people - Page 4 2190311264

by Victorismyhero Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:39 pm

Ziz wrote:
Ziz wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:so...christs teachings were essentially communistic in nature
the following christians claimed to follow his teachings
they also established a theocracy as bad as (at least) as ISIS

therfor you have a bona fide leftwing theocracy

contrary to your assertion that theocracies are R/W

But they didn't follow his teachings - Constantine co-opted Christianity to unite the Roman Empire and corrupted it for Roman purposes - and nor was Rome a theocracy.

ask the victims of the spanish inquisition.....even kings bowed before them and the pope...

by HoratioTarr Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:41 pm

Ziz wrote:
The Devil, You Know wrote:
nothing else, just pointing out your error. (again)
I have made no error - Isis, Isil, IS or Daesh (whatever you prefer) are far-right.

They're not anything but evil, self serving psychopaths.

by Guest Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:43 pm

Lord Foul wrote:

ask the victims of the spanish inquisition.....even kings bowed before them and the pope...

The Spanish Inquisition was nothing to do with the Roman Empire. scratch

by Guest Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:44 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Ziz wrote:
I have made no error - Isis, Isil, IS or Daesh (whatever you prefer) are far-right.

They're not anything but evil, self serving psychopaths.

Yes - far-right evil, self serving psychopaths.

by HoratioTarr Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:48 pm

Ziz wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

ask the victims of the spanish inquisition.....even kings bowed before them and the pope...

The Spanish Inquisition was nothing to do with the Roman Empire.

I think he means the Holy Roman Church.

by Guest Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:49 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Ziz wrote:

The Spanish Inquisition was nothing to do with the Roman Empire.

I think he means the Holy Roman Church.

Which also was not a theocracy.

by Victorismyhero Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:52 pm

Ziz wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

ask the victims of the spanish inquisition.....even kings bowed before them and the pope...

The Spanish Inquisition was nothing to do with Roman Empire.

I didnt say it was...

but the spanish inquisition was supposedly "christian". Rome (as in the old roman empire...claudius constantine and all that) itself merely served to legitimise and expand "christianity" In the days of the early catholic church (a bit later than the roman christianity you mention) you have to remember that at least in the western world it was the ONLY "christian" influence...(since of course it had a way of dealing with any opposition)

by Victorismyhero Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:54 pm

Ziz wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:
Ziz wrote:

The Spanish Inquisition was nothing to do with the Roman Empire.

I think he means the Holy Roman Church.

Which also was not a theocracy.

In practice?? it was....
it overruled kings and emperors
and effectively ruled the wetern world, via a reign of terror

by Victorismyhero Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:07 pm

anyways...that was interesting

I guess it revolves round whether one is concerned with strict interpretations or reality and "in prcatice"

me? I'm off to me pit...sleep well ......

by Guest Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:11 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Ziz wrote:

Which also was not a theocracy.
In practice?? it was....
it overruled kings and emperors
and effectively ruled the wetern world, via a reign of terror

Not in practice or in fact - there is no point in whatifery or outright fiction - the Christian church is not a theocracy, left or right wing.

Technically from the 1930s Vatican City could be said to be a theocracy since it is a recognized state - but left-wing? Come on now. Laughing

by Tommy Monk Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:12 pm

Ziz wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Not hallmarks of left wing ideology... but mostly hallmarks of politically correct 'progressives' agenda...

How are freedom of expression, freedom of religion and a representative democracy hallmarks of a "politically correct 'progressives' agenda"?

Do the far-right wish to end these things?

Those 3 things... freedom of expression/religion and representative democracy are not hallmarks of the left in that they genuinely believe in them... and are things that the overwhelming vast majority of people in any free secular democracy staunchly believe in...

But while these 3 things are loudly talked about by the lefties and the 'progressives'... in reality... they only like freedom of expression when it is loudly expressing their views/beliefs/agenda and any/all opposing views must be met with hostility and actively shouted down/suppressed...

Freedom of religion... is just double speak for their pro Muslim/islam agenda and the pursuit of ever increasing special treatment/privileges for them... and only them... while they are also actively pursuing their hostility to Christians and restrictions on Christians from having any such freedoms... frowning on any Christians who might wear a cross on a necklace in the workplace for example... or the continuing attempts at rebranding Christmas as 'winterval' etc...

And as far as representative democracy goes... they hate democracy!!!

They want a parliament full of THEM who only represent THEIR AGENDA and for this to BE ENFORCED ONTO THE BRITISH PEOPLE WITHOUT QUESTION!!!

by Guest Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:17 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Ziz wrote:

How are freedom of expression, freedom of religion and a representative democracy hallmarks of a "politically correct 'progressives' agenda"?

Do the far-right wish to end these things?

Those 3 things... freedom of expression/religion and representative democracy are not hallmarks of the left in that they genuinely believe in them... and are things that the overwhelming vast majority of people in any free secular democracy staunchly believe in...

You said they were.."mostly hallmarks of politically correct 'progressives' agenda"...

...but now you say they are not, but are..."things that the overwhelming vast majority of people in any free secular democracy staunchly believe in..."

Lily Allen Causes a Twitter Furore after apologising for the whole of the British people - Page 4 156503

Lily Allen Causes a Twitter Furore after apologising for the whole of the British people - Page 4 156503

by Tommy Monk Sat Oct 15, 2016 12:06 am

No... I was saying that most of the things listed were of the progressives...

by Tommy Monk Sat Oct 15, 2016 12:09 am

And the 3 I listed are not exclusive to any political grouping in uk...

And I was pointing out that the progressives have a totally different meaning of the 3 in mind when they spout off about then...

by Guest Sat Oct 15, 2016 12:09 am

Tommy Monk wrote:No... I was saying that most of the things listed were of the progressives...

Most are not though...

"...anti-feminist and anti-gay, they don't believe in freedom of expression, freedom of religion, multiculturalism, pacifism, representative democracy"

by Guest Sat Oct 15, 2016 12:12 am

Tommy Monk wrote:

And the 3 I listed are not exclusive to any political grouping in uk...

And yet you claimed they were... "mostly hallmarks of politically correct 'progressives' agenda".

But not to worry, we all make mistakes.

by Tommy Monk Sat Oct 15, 2016 12:16 am

You are confused... Ben was saying those were isis views... and therefore far right...

Having the opposite views are hallmarks of the left...

I was saying it was the pc progressives not necessarily left...

There are plenty of left who don't support feminists or pro gay agenda or multiculturalism... etc...

by Guest Sat Oct 15, 2016 12:21 am

Tommy Monk wrote:You are confused... Ben was saying those were isis views... and therefore far right...

Having the opposite views are hallmarks of the left...

I was saying it was the pc progressives not necessarily left...

There are plenty of left who don't support feminists or pro gay agenda or multiculturalism... etc...

No - he was saying that female and gay rights, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, multiculturalism, pacifism and representative democracy were NOT values that ISIS subscribe to - and thus ISIS are far-right.

These values have next to sod all to do with political correctness - only haters and far-right ISIS types would wish to remove our long-established gay and women's rights etc.

by Tommy Monk Sat Oct 15, 2016 12:27 am

Ben said...

Of course they are! They're quite anti-feminist and anti-gay, they don't believe in freedom of expression, freedom of religion, multiculturalism, pacifism, representative democracy, or any of the other hallmarks of left-wing ideology.

by Guest Sat Oct 15, 2016 12:29 am

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben said...

Of course they are! They're quite anti-feminist and anti-gay, they don't believe in freedom of expression, freedom of religion, multiculturalism, pacifism, representative democracy, or any of the other hallmarks of left-wing ideology.

Correct, meaning female and gay rights, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, multiculturalism, pacifism and representative democracy were NOT values that ISIS subscribe to - and therefore ISIS are far-right, thus refuting the earlier assertion that they were not.

by Tommy Monk Sat Oct 15, 2016 12:49 am

He said 'anti feminist' and 'anti gay'...

The opposite of those are 'pro feminists' and 'pro gay'...

They are pc progressives ideals...

by Guest Sat Oct 15, 2016 12:54 am

Tommy Monk wrote:He said 'anti feminist' and 'anti gay'...

The opposite of those are 'pro feminists' and 'pro gay'...

They are pc progressives ideals...

This exchange has descended below my boredom threshold - thus I am content to wait for Ben to confirm my interpretation of what he said - if however it turns out that he supports your account then you will have my apology.

by Tommy Monk Sat Oct 15, 2016 1:06 am

There are plenty of left in the world who are not pro feminist or pro gay...

So to say either is a hallmark of the 'left' is nonsense...

by Guest Sat Oct 15, 2016 1:08 am

Tommy Monk wrote:There are plenty of left in the world who are not pro feminist or pro gay...

So to say either is a hallmark of the 'left' is nonsense...

Take that up with him - the relevant point remains that he and I both agree that ISIS are far-right.

by Tommy Monk Sat Oct 15, 2016 1:17 am

Ok Didge...!

lol!

by Guest Sat Oct 15, 2016 1:20 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Ok Didge...!

Didge posts on Dogs I believe - I am not he.

by Tommy Monk Sat Oct 15, 2016 2:06 am

Ok Didge...!!!

lol!

by HoratioTarr Sat Oct 15, 2016 12:56 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Ok Didge...!!!

Ziz is not Didge.

by The Devil, You Know Sat Oct 15, 2016 1:34 pm

Ziz wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben said...

Of course they are! They're quite anti-feminist and anti-gay, they don't believe in freedom of expression, freedom of religion, multiculturalism, pacifism, representative democracy, or any of the other hallmarks of left-wing ideology.

Correct, meaning female and gay rights, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, multiculturalism, pacifism and representative democracy were NOT values that ISIS subscribe to - and therefore ISIS are far-right, thus refuting the earlier assertion that they were not.

they are not values that ISLAM ascribe to. some Muslims may not kill them but they dont support them.

you seem to think oppression of the gays is only a right wing issue.
bit of a sweeping statement dont you think

by Guest Sat Oct 15, 2016 1:36 pm

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Ziz wrote:

Correct, meaning female and gay rights, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, multiculturalism, pacifism and representative democracy were NOT values that ISIS subscribe to - and therefore ISIS are far-right, thus refuting the earlier assertion that they were not.
they are not values that ISLAM ascribe to. some Muslims may not kill them but they dont support them.

you seem to think oppression of the gays is only a right wing issue.
bit of a sweeping statement dont you think

Right or left, matters to me not a jot - I am anti-hate.

by Sponsored content