Islamic State Have A Magazine Out, And It Justifies Sex Slavery

First topic message reminder :

Islamic State fighters captured, enslaved and sold Yazidi women and children, and claim the act is justified in Islam to prevent men from feeling "tempted" by other, non-enslaved women, according to a piece in the group's full-colour magazine.

The magazine, which is published in English and evidently aimed at a Western audience, confirms the long-rumoured atrocities committed by the group in Iraq, where Yazidi women have reported being kidnapped, sold for a few dollars and repeatedly raped.

The latest issue of Dabiq magazine released on Sunday stated, "the enslaved Yazidi families are now sold by the Islamic State soldiers." It added, "the Yazidi women and children were then divided according to the Sharia amongst the fighters of the Islamic State who participated in the Sinjar operations."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/13/islamic-state-have-a-magazine-out-and-it-justifies-sex-slavery_n_5976996.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

victorisnotamused wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Wow, Vic. You claim good and evil are subjective opinions based on cultural context and values, yet you're going to make absolute statements about the nature of things like chaos and freedom ...



Actually, we don't need to wonder about these things as though they may be fundamental forces or universal truths -- it doesn't even take a human being to understand when he/she's being treated unfairly, there are many animals that demonstrate an understanding of basic fairness and cruelty. Which shows these are actually biological traits.

Study all the philosophy you want ... develop fluency in Klingon while you're at it

good /evil...subjective ...and proveably so
chaos/order objective truths again proveably so
fairness? by who's definition?


what actually constitutes a state of "fairness"?? subjective again.....

and is "fairness" good or evil.....subjective depending on your point of view (especially your point of view as to what constitues "fair"
hence the argument at present about britains NHS being bled dry by disease ridden foreigners who have never contributed a penny and in most likelyhood never will.....

didge seems to think its fair...and thus good

I think its NOT fair and thus evil

I think if you take the view of well being you can establish boundaries around good and evil, basing this also off experinces. If for for example your well being though is gained from the ill treatment of another, that could not be construed as well being for the victim. This is not about fair, but right and wrong, something I believe is hundreds of thousands of years old ingrained within humans, maybe even genetically. The reality is Sam Harris states, you can base a view on what is well being.
Your view on foreigners, who have had not the advantages of you, is you basing a view Victim that being born to a land, allows you to claim they cannot move from one land to another. There is no logical view point there other than you thus thinking you own the right to deny people to move here based on your own perception and view point as if you own the land. The realty is in most unselfish people who see right from wrong, they see it is wrong to deny people the same benefits your were only born into, an education and a nation that has an economic advantage, based around centuries before where this nation clearly did not have the best well being in mind for many people. It in fact gave this nation an advantage in advancement based off money. 
Why do we bother to teach to share, be patient and wait inline, treat others as we would wish them to treat us?

Brasidas wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

good /evil...subjective ...and proveably so
chaos/order objective truths again proveably so
fairness? by who's definition?


what actually constitutes a state of "fairness"?? subjective again.....

and is "fairness" good or evil.....subjective depending on your point of view (especially your point of view as to what constitues "fair"
hence the argument at present about britains NHS being bled dry by disease ridden foreigners who have never contributed a penny and in most likelyhood never will.....

didge seems to think its fair...and thus good

I think its NOT fair and thus evil

I think if you take the view of well being you can establish boundaries around good and evil, basing this also off experinces. If for for example your well being though is gained from the ill treatment of another, that could not be construed as well being for the victim. This is not about fair, but right and wrong, something I believe is hundreds of thousands of years old ingrained within humans, maybe even genetically. The reality is Sam Harris states, you can base a view on what is well being.
Your view on foreigners, who have had not the advantages of you, is you basing a view Victim that being born to a land, allows you to claim they cannot move from one land to another. There is no logical view point there other than you thus thinking you own the right to deny people to move here based on your own perception and view point as if you own the land. The realty is in most unselfish people who see right from wrong, they see it is wrong to deny people the same benefits your were only born into, an education and a nation that has an economic advantage, based around centuries before where this nation clearly did not have the best well being in mind for many people. It in fact gave this nation an advantage in advancement based off money. 
Why do we bother to teach to share, be patient and wait inline, treat others as we would wish them to treat us?

because we have had years of "progressives" whineing in our ears?
because of propaganda?

your proposal didge is all great and dandy BUT....it presupposes an impossible scenario...a sort of star trek community, where people only work for "self improvement " and the common good...

NOW you aint stupid...you KNOW that will not be achieved in millenia...and it isnt down to me ...as long as theres money there will be money men...and neither YOU nor I nor any one else of the "common man" can touch them.... There will NEVER be a global uprisibng of the common man, unless you beleive in some strange sort of athiest messiah.

SO given that there is AT PRESENT...and will be for the forseeable future, only so much cash in the pot......why should I sacrifice on part of what I have worked for and paid into, in order to provide an (increasingly) expensive service to someone who has never contributed nor ever will..

where do you expect the share of the pot that goes to johnney foreigner to come from
do you expect me to accept a lesser service for all, just so johnney can get his HIV treated
or
do you expect one of our own sufferers to go without treatment (how noble)
or
do you expect me to pay over even MORE of my hard earned cash to pay the extra

or what..........

Point one- how is it impossible if some people can and do act with decency?
That shows and proves anything is possible, only those who are not are stopping themselves from what to me I call enlightenment.
To say something is not going to be achieved within a thousand years or even longer is defeatism and very negative, when anything is achievable if you have the rhetoric to make it so. It would only take one charismatic person to achieve this in today's technology.

Point 2, we both know of many examples where living at the time we would have not viewed as achievable, so to base a view it is not possible is you know wrong, as it is a matter of then when it can be achieved.

Part 3, your contribution is minimal to say the least and only collectively with millions of others a real contribution. You are not sacrificing anything, unless you feel people living a hundred miles away from you is going to create problem for you, I fail to see how it would.

Point 4, your own education and the wealth of this nation was brought about from might and war, where money plundered aloud for this nation to have the elite back then advance societies through not only scientific break through and thus enable schooling etc. So basically you are going off the view, that what you never made possible, but of countless others over many years, using the exploited wealth of nations to enable this nation to advance is now some reason to deny people a right to live on a land, that you were only born onto and by this luck advantaged with. 

So what you have paid into a system, is far less than others, so by your view point should you then receive a lesser service compared to them?
So those who pay more should not have to wait the que and thus allow others to suffer based on a level of input?

one word didge...rubbish...

It is not though Victor, your logic would thus deny children ho contribute nothing, who in fact the parents of are benefited to pay less in contributions by having children, even though, by using your argument places more people onto the land and strains the system, where we can have as many as we like. You would deny those who do not pay being some women, those with disabilities etc, making a view point that only those who contribute can benefit, basing this on a level of input. Thus by your reasoning the richest would always benefit being as they would pay far more and thus jump the que and you know the this to be true your logic on this to be flawed as seen above.

Bull shit....


ALL british citizes are automatically entitled, either by means of paying NI or by NI credits OR AS LONG AS THEY ARE BRITISH CITIZENS by a presumption of entitlement in law
therefore I am denying NO one who is properly entitled their fair access.

IF we played your ridiculous game didge...everyone of us from queen to dustman would have to pay their ENTIRE income as NI to provide a free service to foreign HIV sufferers alon...let alone TB, malaria, cancer

so dont be bloody stupid.....

Its a nice ideal...but it aint gonna happen...just because "some" things have happend that were once though impossible doesnt mean this will....

and...OK so you DO beleive in some wierd sort of  athiest messiah.....pfffft....

how long a life expectancy do you give him once he suggests that the 1% give up their 90% eh.....not long .....

you forget...Kennedy got bumped for merely suggesting that when possible we should be nice to folks.....

By birth right? That is elitism.

Basically we are back now to a view of now where you are born onto a land entitles you with no logic to benefits none of which you created, but countless other people did way before you were born and again off plundered wealth, which enabled society to advance, without which you would not have had today.
We are all one biological race, thus you propose a racial view point to deny equality, which again your logic on levels of input as seen were illogical it allowed for those who imputed more to gain more. The fact is I am not saying all should pay, far from it, I am showing how illogical you arguing off how much input is, when you yourself contribute less than others.

Again the logical view point you propose is off nothing you ever did, but benefited just from being born here. That is no sound or logical reason then for you to deny other people a right to live here.

There's been an atheist messiah for 15 years now, how dare you insult my faith!

http://www.atheistmessiah.com/

in 2011 there were approx 24 million people IN AFRICA alone living with HIV

there are approx 30 million people in work in the UK

each HIV patient costs about £20,000 PER YEAR to maintain....

where is the money going to come from???

berk....

thats not to count all the other diseases and infestations they bring.....

so I assume you intend to strip every UK worker of their pay...homes, cars, and all other goods in order to "feel good" about the world....

didge my boy...I gotta say I respect you as a debating opponent...but come the revolution...you are going to be the first against the brick wall......

victorisnotamused wrote:in 2011 there were approx 24 million people IN AFRICA alone living with HIV

there are approx 30 million people in work in the UK

each HIV patient costs about £20,000 PER YEAR to maintain....

where is the money going to come from???

And so now you wish to deny medical help based on people contracting illnesses mainly based off no fault of their own, so now a victim of rape, is not only going to live with the horror of rape but also being denied because she is African any help from a nation that can help her.
How about the world stop allowing pharmaceutical companies to be profit making enterprises and make them all controlled to benefit the people who all need the medicine. Place as we do with high taxes on cigarettes on alcohol, high salt and high sugar foods etc. I can think of many ways, to be honest and all you are doing is providing excuses, not anything that can solve these problems.

Ben_Reilly wrote:There's been an atheist messiah for 15 years now, how dare you insult my faith!

http://www.atheistmessiah.com/

victorisnotamused wrote:so I assume you intend to strip every UK worker of their pay...homes, cars, and all other goods in order to "feel good" about the world....

didge my boy...I gotta say I respect you as a debating opponent...but come the revolution...you are going to be the first against the brick wall......

Interesting do you think material wealth is more important than human well being?

Brasidas wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:in 2011 there were approx 24 million people IN AFRICA alone living with HIV

there are approx 30 million people in work in the UK

each HIV patient costs about £20,000 PER YEAR to maintain....

where is the money going to come from???

And so now you wish to deny medical help based on people contracting illnesses mainly based off no fault of their own, so now a victim of rape, is not only going to live with the horror of rape but also being denied because she is African any help from a nation that can help her.
How about the world stop allowing pharmaceutical companies to be profit making enterprises and make them all controlled to benefit the people who all need the medicine. Place as we do with high taxes on cigarettes on alcohol, high salt and high sugar foods etc. I can think of many ways, to be honest and all you are doing is providing excuses, not anything that can solve these problems.

where is the money going to come from????
none of that is going to raise even a fraction of the £480 BILLION required for aids ALONE.....
what part of "will require virtually the ENTIRE income of every UK wage earner.".do you fail to understand?

what part of you cant make the pharmas charge less...or they will simply pack up and go either abroad..(china) or simply just pack in and stop doing what they do....

clearly you have no idea of the cost of the research necessary to get from "lab sample" to licenced medicine.....
they need to recoup that...and only THEN can they think about their profit margin and shareholders etc....

what part of getting from lab sample to licenced medicine costs 10s of millions dont you get?

where , in this imaginary world with 10 contributors and 10 million takers, do you think the majgic money tree lives?

even id you nade the drugs "less" expensive" what about nursing staffs time ...you expect volunteers (unpaid of course...) thousands of them???????
infrastructure....

gods sake man ...get real...

Brasidas wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:so I assume you intend to strip every UK worker of their pay...homes, cars, and all other goods in order to "feel good" about the world....

didge my boy...I gotta say I respect you as a debating opponent...but come the revolution...you are going to be the first against the brick wall......

Interesting do you think material wealth is more important than human well being?

hardly the point if you are going to pauperise people for some noble sounding but idiotic cause....

i recon food in my belly and shelter over my head, a means to get from here to there, is more important than aids treatment for a foreigner

and...ultimately...why should I bother to get off my arse and work...if I'm going to get f**k all benefit from it....????

I dont work JUST to feed my gut ...nor is it encumbent upon me to do so..I work to benefit myself and family.....and through taxes etc benefit the country as a whole....IO am not prepared to work the hours I did for no net benefit....I am NOT the workslave of the world.....

and.....as to your original question.......no...BUT.........I dont give a toss about that african with aids....he aint my tribe....and he aint contributed anything to MY well being

ultimately didge, NO-ONE except in the most disasterous situation, is prepared to work full hours and more merely for "board and lodging"

Tribe, we are all of one tribe, from the same mother.
So basically you are at one with Sauron. 
Humans lived many years ago near to extinction, it was because they came together that we as a race survived.
People should work for not only themselves but for the benefit of others, as that is what a collective society does. Your view would mean you wish to go it alone from others, which is your choice at the end of the day, but the reality is just where you were born benefited you from better medical help and food in your belly, with a roof over your head, not all born here are so lucky.
Sorry Victor, I hope you never have to rely on others for any help, as at some point we all need to.

victorisnotamused wrote:ultimately didge, NO-ONE except in the most disasterous situation, is prepared to work full hours and more merely for "board and lodging"

You only offer what is wrong with society today, with again no view how to change that.
It can though be changed, but then people are so scare of changed, even when it is for the better.
Anyway my point was more on the illogical point you proposed on levels of input and how birth right is not a moral factor to decide who can live anywhere on this plant, of which nobody can claim a right to really own.

So didge...when you send round your armed thugs to strip everyone of their posessions, make them homeless and render them starving, merely to feed your dream ...how will you justify it?

and dont you think that you might just run up against some resistance......
of course you would then gleefully slaughter all opposition would you not.....

victorisnotamused wrote:So didge...when you send round your armed thugs to strip everyone of their posessions, make them homeless and render them starving, merely to feed your dream ...how will you justify it?

Eh, my view is for people to be enlightened that they do not many things, thus you take the wrong view point. I mean why would I need to force, that is your logic, not mine. I never said for people to lose homes either, why would they need to, you can build many homes, or for them to starve, you now very well, we very much have the means to accommodate all the planet with food, profit stands in the way of this.

Brasidas wrote:Tribe, we are all of one tribe, from the same mother.
So basically you are at one with Sauron. 
Humans lived many years ago near to extinction, it was because they came together that we as a race survived.
People should work for not only themselves but for the benefit of others, as that is what a collective society does. Your view would mean you wish to go it alone from others, which is your choice at the end of the day, but the reality is just where you were born benefited you from better medical help and food in your belly, with a roof over your head, not all born here are so lucky.
Sorry Victor, I hope you never have to rely on others for any help, as at some point we all need to.

thing is didge...i know in general i can rely on help from my own country (into which I have paid my dues) But I cant rely on help from outside ...CAN I??

iits like the question I asked and you dodged...by YOUR logic you would be willing for me to have my risk (as a driver) transfered at YOUR expense to YOUR insurance...at NO cost to me.....

I like that idea.....would save me a small fortune.......

victorisnotamused wrote:and dont you think that you might just run up against some resistance......
of course you would then gleefully slaughter all opposition would you not.....

Again incorrect, people change their views through reason, and would use reason to attempt to change, which is non violent. You seem to be going off your logic, not mine.
I know this will take a long time, but when you think about it, this would not take much to happen, if people changed their perceptions.

victorisnotamused wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Tribe, we are all of one tribe, from the same mother.
So basically you are at one with Sauron. 
Humans lived many years ago near to extinction, it was because they came together that we as a race survived.
People should work for not only themselves but for the benefit of others, as that is what a collective society does. Your view would mean you wish to go it alone from others, which is your choice at the end of the day, but the reality is just where you were born benefited you from better medical help and food in your belly, with a roof over your head, not all born here are so lucky.
Sorry Victor, I hope you never have to rely on others for any help, as at some point we all need to.

thing is didge...i know in general i can rely on help from my own country (into which I have paid my dues) But I cant rely on help from outside ...CAN I??

iits like the question I asked and you dodged...by YOUR logic you would be willing for me to have my risk (as a driver) transfered at YOUR expense to YOUR insurance...at NO cost to me.....

I like that idea.....would save me a small fortune.......

 Again in my view you would even need to own a car or to even pay for one or have the need to finance getting around, you have systems of transport which is already becoming automatic and driverless, as we already have driverless trains.

Brasidas wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:So didge...when you send round your armed thugs to strip everyone of their posessions, make them homeless and render them starving, merely to feed your dream ...how will you justify it?

Eh, my view is for people to be enlightened that they do not many things, thus you take the wrong view point. I mean why would I need to force, that is your logic, not mine. I never said for people to lose homes either, why would they need to, you can build many homes, or for them to starve, you now very well, we very much have the means to accommodate all the planet with food, profit stands in the way of this.

so now you are going to build homes...for free, to give to people? without conditions? (that is to say they can demand any alterations they feel they need, they can have whatever size garden they reasonably need? they can have an extra room if they want (just to keep their collection of sea shells in perhaps) or will it be "little boxes, little boxes, made of ticky tack, and they all look the same" are you going to "give" them cars...and tellys, and mobiles and.......

or will all those things be banned (except for the elite of course...and like it or not there WILL be an elite)

will we be back to walking everywhere....

how far back will you put society?

will you have all these homes fitted with emergency summons buttons (since clearly phones couldnt be allowed..)(because if one person was "given" their phone then you would either have to give everyone one (whether working or notand thus why bother working for anything????) OR take it off a person who is made redundant......either way is going to lead to strife....

how would this work...go on...enlighten me.......

victorisnotamused wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Eh, my view is for people to be enlightened that they do not many things, thus you take the wrong view point. I mean why would I need to force, that is your logic, not mine. I never said for people to lose homes either, why would they need to, you can build many homes, or for them to starve, you now very well, we very much have the means to accommodate all the planet with food, profit stands in the way of this.

so now you are going to build homes...for free, to give to people? without conditions? (that is to say they can demand any alterations they feel they need, they can have whatever size garden they reasonably need? they can have an extra room if they want (just to keep their collection of sea shells in perhaps) or will it be "little boxes, little boxes, made of ticky tack, and they all look the same" are you going to "give" them cars...and tellys, and mobiles and.......

or will all those things be banned (except for the elite of course...and like it or not there WILL be an elite)

will we be back to walking everywhere....

how far back will you put society?

will you have all these homes fitted with emergency summons buttons (since clearly phones couldnt be allowed..)(because if one person was "given" their phone then you would either have to give everyone one (whether working or notand thus why bother working for anything????) OR take it off a person who is made redundant......either way is going to lead to strife....

how would this work...go on...enlighten me.......

Yes build everyone homes, where again you are making view points to things you are thinking of which I have never even claimed would be what I visualize. My view is if people have no want or need, it does not matter what they have, the point you are missing because you are stick stuck on a view of materiel wealth, which is where your counters are going wrong, again you have to imagine people have evolved and been enlightened. You are not doing that and going off your own perceptions which the view here is of no need of material wealth. People will still have many things to provide benefits to them, but nobody owns them, they are for everyone.

Brasidas wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

thing is didge...i know in general i can rely on help from my own country (into which I have paid my dues) But I cant rely on help from outside ...CAN I??

iits like the question I asked and you dodged...by YOUR logic you would be willing for me to have my risk (as a driver) transfered at YOUR expense to YOUR insurance...at NO cost to me.....

I like that idea.....would save me a small fortune.......

 Again in my view you would even need to own a car or to even pay for one or have the need to finance getting around, you have systems of transport which is already becoming automatic and driverless, as we already have driverless trains.

trains and busses dont go where I want most times.....
trains and busses add hours to my travel times by needing changes and waiting around
public transport is unreliable

you cant bring home 1/2 tonne of sand on a bus.....
the bus doesnt go to B&Q
the bus company doesnt like the mess
the other passengers complain when it takes an hour to unload
the bus company doesnt like the bus going down our road.....

you cant go on holiday (at least not MY kind of holiday) in/on a bus

for some reason people get all out of shape if you get on a bus with a shotgun under your arm

idiot bus drivers dont like you taking your dog(s) on a bus

If I was to cover the milage on a bus that i cover in my car..it would cost me 3 times as much as running the car, be stupidly inconvenient and at times impossible.

moreover what abut the person who works 40 miles from home..like my missus used to do....

travel by bus would have meant 2 hours + travel there, then 2 hours + travel back

Now I hate to disillusion you didge...but who is going to be willing to put another 1/2 a working day ON TOP of the normal day...just to get to a job...for which...under your rules would gain them nothing...????????????????

victorisnotamused wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



 Again in my view you would even need to own a car or to even pay for one or have the need to finance getting around, you have systems of transport which is already becoming automatic and driverless, as we already have driverless trains.

trains and busses dont go where I want most times.....
you will have driverless cabs
trains and busses add hours to my travel times by needing changes and waiting around
public transport is unreliable
you will have driverless cabs
you cant bring home 1/2 tonne of sand on a bus.....
Driverless lorries
the bus doesnt go to B&Q
you will have driverless cabs
the bus company doesnt like the mess
the other passengers complain when it takes an hour to unload
the bus company doesnt like the bus going down our road.....
you will have driverless cabs

you cant go on holiday  (at least not MY kind of holiday) in/on a bus
you will have driverless planes

for some reason people get all out of shape if you get on a bus with a shotgun under your arm
There will be no need of weapons

idiot bus drivers dont like you taking your dog(s) on a bus
you will have driverless cabs

If I was to cover the milage on a bus that i cover in my car..it would cost me 3 times as much as running the car, be stupidly inconvenient and at times impossible.
you will have driverless cabs

moreover what abut the person who works 40 miles from home..like my missus used to do....
you will have driverless cabs

travel by bus would have meant 2 hours + travel there, then 2 hours + travel back
you will have driverless cabs

Now I hate to disillusion you didge...but who is going to be willing to put another 1/2 a working day ON TOP of the normal day...just to get to a job...for which...under your rules would gain them nothing...????????????????

Again you are not thinking out of the Box, hence why you are thinking negatively and not positively.

Brasidas wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

so now you are going to build homes...for free, to give to people? without conditions? (that is to say they can demand any alterations they feel they need, they can have whatever size garden they reasonably need? they can have an extra room if they want (just to keep their collection of sea shells in perhaps) or will it be "little boxes, little boxes, made of ticky tack, and they all look the same" are you going to "give" them cars...and tellys, and mobiles and.......

or will all those things be banned (except for the elite of course...and like it or not there WILL be an elite)

will we be back to walking everywhere....

how far back will you put society?

will you have all these homes fitted with emergency summons buttons (since clearly phones couldnt be allowed..)(because if one person was "given" their phone then you would either have to give everyone one (whether working or notand thus why bother working for anything????) OR take it off a person who is made redundant......either way is going to lead to strife....

how would this work...go on...enlighten me.......

Yes build everyone homes, where again you are making view points to things you are thinking of which I have never even claimed would be what I visualize. My view is if people have no want or need, it does not matter what they have, the point you are missing because you are stick stuck on a view of materiel wealth, which is where your counters are going wrong, again you have to imagine people have evolved and been enlightened. You are not doing that and going off your own perceptions which the view here is of no need of material wealth. People will still have many things to provide benefits to them, but nobody owns them, they are for everyone.

But people always have needs...shelter food, comforts....

we are material creature...NOT spiritual....man does not live by words alone and all that......

so no-one owns them....so no one has rights on them....hmmmmm

so there is no such crime as theft...since you do not own that piece of real estate I have just misappropriated...so tha I can have two...why do i want two...cos it shows i'm better than you....(the same reasoning that big banker man drives a porsche and not a mini)...do you REALLY think you will get EVERYONE on the same level????

I have said this before didge...you have TOO much faith in mankind......we may.....eventually.....get there.......but neither You nor I will see it, nor will it happen either willingly or peacefully.....as I said the 1% aint about to give up their 90% willingly....now or ever......and its NOT ALL about the money either...far more insidious is the POWER it brings.....

I would argue we are actually quite spiritual, which goes back hundreds of thousands of yeas and by this I do not mean religious.
Again you are forgetting people have changed to an enlightened way, what you view now just does not exist anymore..

I doubt we will see it or that we are far from finding any such view point but it made for some good debating to see what counters could be made here.   

Night Victor

Brasidas wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

trains and busses dont go where I want most times.....
you will have driverless cabs

you would have to book and WAIT for it to turn up...there would never be enough for 1 per family....
trains and busses add hours to my travel times by needing changes and waiting around
public transport is unreliable
you will have driverless cabs

why would that make them more reliable....still subject to breakdown...and as an unsupervised public asset would be even MORE subject to abuse
you cant bring home 1/2 tonne of sand on a bus.....
Driverless lorries

do I get this delivery done for free?....as often as I want?

the bus doesnt go to B&Q
you will have driverless cabs
the bus company doesnt like the mess
the other passengers complain when it takes an hour to unload
the bus company doesnt like the bus going down our road.....
you will have driverless cabs

you cant go on holiday  (at least not MY kind of holiday) in/on a bus
you will have driverless planes

caravanning didge...not flying.... needs a 4x4 full time for 14 days......and would the "driverless cab take the "risky route" up that hill on my instruction....or is "off roading another hobby you would remove from the permitted list?

for some reason people get all out of shape if you get on a bus with a shotgun under your arm
There will be no need of weapons

Oh yes...I forgot that...in your dystopian universe only "permitted hobbies" like total obediance to the state classes will be allowed......

idiot bus drivers dont like you taking your dog(s) on a bus
you will have driverless cabs

If I was to cover the milage on a bus that i cover in my car..it would cost me 3 times as much as running the car, be stupidly inconvenient and at times impossible.
you will have driverless cabs

and at all times and for as long as i want for free??

moreover what abut the person who works 40 miles from home..like my missus used to do....
you will have driverless cabs

travel by bus would have meant 2 hours + travel there, then 2 hours + travel back
you will have driverless cabs

will this driverless cab be sat on my drive...24/7 in case i have an urgent reason to travel.......

Now I hate to disillusion you didge...but who is going to be willing to put another 1/2 a working day ON TOP of the normal day...just to get to a job...for which...under your rules would gain them nothing...????????????????

Again you are not thinking out of the Box, hence why you are thinking negatively and not positively.

and ...how is this (very expensive...far more so than individual ownership) going to be financed....ultimately SOMEONE has to make it. oversee it and maintain it....

now...since presumably this will be available to EVERYONE regardless......what advantage is there to induce me to have the day in day out hassle of working.....I mean...who the hell would be "customer complaints" officer for THAT kind of operation?????

The Puzzler wrote:And I don't know about you veya but I'd rather be eaten by a shark or die in a road accident than be paraded, tortured and beheaded on camera in my own country - even if the former examples are statistically more likely it doesn't mean we shouldn't try as hard as possible to reduce the risk of the latter happening to any of our citizens(are you forgetting Lee Rigby so soon).

Sorry Didn't see it
Not much different, got better chance against another human
much prefer to fight a terrorist than a shark.

and mother fuckers were only talking about using a knife I have been in knife fights before.... meh

We are setting ourselves up for Mumbai/Westgate style attacks on our home soil if we don't take drastic action to stop the spread of Salafism and Wahhabism in the West.

true the pessimistic rubbish you say is setting your nation up for such things.
the fact that Aussie Muslims are Still Aussie they are our brothers and sisters none the less and we know the vast majority know that... working together we have something better to offer...

The way I see it, we have two options -- faith in mankind, or extinction (likely by our own hand).

It's really easy to get so caught up in the wrong that people do that we lose perspective and fail to recognize that most people get most things more or less right.

Morning folks. As interesting as it is, all the above philosophizing doesn't answer the question about ISIS. We can and do accept good moral standards, and accept into our respective countries people of different nationalities, colour and creed, most people are given the chance to prove themselves, show that they too abide by our national codes of conduct and moral standards, this helps humanity to grow and mature into something worthwhile. But Isis are like a plague, a disease, like Ebola? Their ideology and aims do not fit into the category of Mankind helping itself along the road of maturity, and as such they do not deserve the right to existance. Evolution has depended a lot on our human species co-operating, working together, as opposed to people like Isis who seek to cause chaos and destruction. An opposition to democracy as we view it. Women for example are classed as second class citizens, who aren't allowed education, aren't allowed to vote, aren't allowed to dress as they please. Those attitudes only seek to set mankind on a backwards trail, a trail to chaos, hate, and who knows, oblivion?

Or have I got it all wrong? If terrorists smashed my door down, stormed in, killed my wife, raped my daughters, stole anything worthwhile, should I clap my hands and welcome them?

Yes Stardesk, you welcome them with both barrels of a .12 bore shotgun firing Buckshot!

Indeed Nicko, or a machine gun and a genade thrown in the middle of them.
Or better still, providing innocent people move away, drop a bloody nuke on them.

stardesk wrote:Indeed Nicko, or a machine gun and a genade thrown in the middle of them.
Or better still, providing innocent people move away, drop a bloody nuke on them.

Machine guns and grenades? You guys are so provincial. A few nukes on the shores of the Levant and all is well, why not?

Us brits tend to be a bit more selective than that, we are not to keen on the "gung ho" approach.

stardesk wrote:Or have I got it all wrong? If terrorists smashed my door down, stormed in, killed my wife, raped my daughters, stole anything worthwhile, should I clap my hands and welcome them?

I want to know who says anybody should be cheering for that sort of thing. I call bullshit.

nicko wrote:Yes Stardesk,  you welcome them with both barrels of a .12 bore shotgun firing Buckshot!

stardesk wrote:Indeed Nicko, or a machine gun and a genade thrown in the middle of them.
Or better still, providing innocent people move away, drop a bloody nuke on them.

Sounds like what you cowboys need is a cold shower ...

I was going to say simply...bullshite!

But I like the 'cold shower' idea.  I quote a  ribald passage from the Lexiphanes of Lucian:

Lucien wrote:"Surely," I said, "you don't mean that notable Dion, that lusty, low-scrotumed, cuntish, and mastic-chewing youth who masturbates and gropes whenever he sees someone with a large penis [πεωδη] and a long prepuce [ποσθωνα]?"

Always wanted to use that passage for a conservative. So fitting.

veya_victaous wrote:

The Puzzler wrote:
And I don't know about you veya but I'd rather be eaten by a shark or die in a road accident than be paraded, tortured and beheaded on camera in my own country - even if the former examples are statistically more likely it doesn't mean we shouldn't try as hard as possible to reduce the risk of the latter happening to any of our citizens(are you forgetting Lee Rigby so soon).

Sorry Didn't see it
Not much different, got better chance against another human
much prefer to fight a terrorist than a shark.

and mother fuckers were only talking about using a knife I have been in knife fights before.... meh

..................

GET eating by a shark in Britain ?!?

I'D like to see that..   THE actual "statistical more likely.." comment is quit ridiculous ~ WHEN exactly was the last recorded shark attack in the UK, let alone actually being eaten ?

WORLD wide only a handful of people are killed by sharks each year. ONLY a small proportion will actually be eaten by those sharks..    "People eat more sharks than sharks eat people !"

ISIS/ISIL will have killed more people in the time it took to read this post, than all of the world's sharks have killed in the last 10 years !!!

AS for cars ~ how many die in road accidents in Britain ?   3=>4-odd thousand a year ?  And that's out of a total of some 17-18,000 deaths due to ALL accidents combined (e.g. also including work accidents, accidents in the home, deaths due to 'misadventure'..) each year over there in ye olde Blighty..

ISIS has already killed well over 10x the annual number of road fatalities in Britain alone, just in the last 6 months alone !!!

TYPICAL clueless nonsense from the old "Puzzled" one ~ spouting more of his usual crappola without researching the topic first..      

Wolf cub, the fount of all knowledge, why don't you get a job on a newspaper as an agony aunt? your so full of shit you could spread it around a lot further than you can on here.