On 17 Sep, 22:24, turnitup <same@same> wrote:
> 1Z wrote:
> >> You might want to elaborate on that. Like, pointing out where I have
> >> ever objected to liberty, freedom of speech, sexequality,
>
> >http://powercut.blogspot.com/2007/09/asinine-imposition.html
>
> >http://powercut.blogspot.com/2007/09/inevitable-consequences-of-injus...
>
> > etc
>
> As I said, you might want to elaborate on that. Like, pointing out where
> I have ever objected to liberty, freedom of speech, sex equality.

Liberty: Passim. Like all rightards, you love Liberty as an
abstraction, whilst volubly objecting to almost all its specific
manifestations

Freedom of Speech. Passim. You have practically made a living out of
objecting to the BBC's output.

Equality: Passim. Your http://powercut.blogspot.com/2007/09/inevitable-consequences-of-injustice.html
is quite explicitly and openly a polemic against the equal right of
two people who love each other to have their relationship recognised
any the state.

turnitup goes:

>The celibacy of priests is a reflection of the significance and 
>responsibility of both the vocations of priesthood and marriage. 
>Religions support marriage and families. In fact, the most vocal 
>defender of marriage and the family has been the Catholic church.

Self-serving drivel. 

If they don't have a responsibility to the opposite sex, then neither
does anyone else. 


-- 
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

turnitup goes:

>You can believe this crap all you like 1Z, just don't be surprised in a 
>few decades time when you turn around and all that's left are geriatrics 
>and a few headcases in the "People of European descent" camp, and the 
>Muslim majority are busy implementing Sharia law and building a mega 
>mosque on the site of Westminster abbey.

Fucking Jeremiah wandering in the desert innit. Don't go out in the
dark, Calwell. You never know who might want to slit your throat and
shag your women. 

Boo!


-- 
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

turnitup goes:

>I think sub-Saharan Africa may be the new hope for civilisation, 
>strangely. It has its problems at the moment but remains a largely 
>Christian, conservative place. It has a long way to go, but it has 
>mineral wealth, fertile land and a fecund people. If and when it can 
>sort out its HIV/Aids problem and corrupt governance the fundamentals 
>are correct for it to become the torch-bearer for all that was good in 
>Europe a few generations ago.

Totally off his fucking rocker. 


-- 
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

turnitup goes:

>It's 4.20 am. We've been up for the last hour and a half trying to get 
>our son to sleep.

>Remind me 1Z and Alan, what is it exactly that you and the govt. think 
>this life has in common with a pair of shacked up fudge-packers or 
>rug-munchers?

What does that sentence even mean? 

Gay people can have children too, you know. Not with each other,
perhaps. Of course divorced and remarried heteros look after the
children of one or the other of them. I take it you have no objection
to that? Why can't homosexuals do the same?


-- 
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

Alan Hope wrote:

> Gay people can have children too, you know. Not with each other,
> perhaps. Of course divorced and remarried heteros look after the
> children of one or the other of them. I take it you have no objection
> to that? Why can't homosexuals do the same?
> 
> 

Because it's harmful to bring children up in homosexual households. 
That's where you and I differ. You see everything from the point of view 
as human beings as a means to an end, as consumer items. I see them as 
people with rights.

Alan Hope wrote:

> Fucking Jeremiah wandering in the desert innit. Don't go out in the
> dark, Calwell. You never know who might want to slit your throat and
> shag your women. 
> 
> Boo!
> 
> 

You are a bit of a paradox, Al. On one hand, you condemn me for wanting 
the state to tacitly and practically support marriage whilst allowing 
people genital freedom, but you don't seem to think that it is an issue 
that an increasing proportion of the people now living in Britain think 
that people who engage in homosexual activity should be executed and 
adulterers should be stoned to death. I think you really need to sort 
yourself out.

You want socio-sexual anarchy, and moral relativism to rule. You can 
have that, sure you can, and you are getting it, month by month, year by 
year. But anarchy leads to destruction. And of course, destruction 
creates a void. And that void is being filled by people who make me look 
like Larry Flynt.

Be careful what you wish for Al, you might just get it.

turnitup wrote:

> Be careful what you wish for Al, you might just get it.

Wait for it..

"F*** you Calwell, you f****** f****** c***". (or words to that effect)

Alan Hope wrote:
> turnitup goes:
> 
>> I think sub-Saharan Africa may be the new hope for civilisation, 
>> strangely. It has its problems at the moment but remains a largely 
>> Christian, conservative place. It has a long way to go, but it has 
>> mineral wealth, fertile land and a fecund people. If and when it can 
>> sort out its HIV/Aids problem and corrupt governance the fundamentals 
>> are correct for it to become the torch-bearer for all that was good in 
>> Europe a few generations ago.
> 
> Totally off his fucking rocker. 
> 

No, I think you have to look at the long term. Regarding HIV/Aids, most 
African countries recognise the problem is cultural and behavioural, and 
cannot be fixed by more penis balloons alone. They identify the problem 
as social and sexual disorder, and the solution as social and sexual 
order. In that, they have the fundamentals right. We just think that, 
contrary to the evidence, sexualising children by throwing leaflets and 
penis balloons at them will solve our problems.

Of course, the African problem is complex, caused in a large part by 
poverty, workers migrating long distances away from their families for 
work, women being forced into prostitution through poverty, etc. So 
these injustices tend to exacerbate the problem.

1Z wrote:
> On 24 Sep, 11:41, turnitup <same@same> wrote:
>> Alan Hope wrote:
>>> Gay people can have children too, you know. Not with each other,
>>> perhaps. Of course divorced and remarried heteros look after the
>>> children of one or the other of them. I take it you have no objection
>>> to that? Why can't homosexuals do the same?
>> Because it's harmful to bring children up in homosexual households.
> 
> Evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3
http://www.narth.com/

1Z wrote:

> Got it. Muslim homophiobia is bad hompohobia, Christian homphobia is
> good hompohobia.
>

Well, I don't know what homophiobia or hompohobia is, but I think I know 
what you are driving at. In short, yes. The Christian implores the 
homosexual practitioner to repent, to turn away of his/her own free will 
from a destructive and negative lifestyle, whilst endeavouring to 
protect wider society and children from inculcation into that person's 
destruction. The Christian endeavours to balance moral and personal 
freedom with the common good. This is in strong contrast to the 
Islamist, who does not see the person as a free moral agent, and instead 
considers the common good to be paramount and seeks to punish and 
eliminate the transgressor.


>> I think you really need to sort
>> yourself out.
>>
>> You want socio-sexual anarchy, and moral relativism to rule.
> 
> Got it.  "socio-sexual anarchy" bad, "gental freedom" good.
> 

Definitely. Society and the state should provide order and structure, 
promote and support that which is objectively healthy and positive, 
protect the vulnerable and choiceless, whilst allowing people to do what 
they want with their genitals in the privacy of their own homes.

> Ha ha! It's always the same story. Enoch Powell isn't going to spill
> any blood personally, the people he's *protcting* us from are going
> to.
> 

Oh dear. Poor Enoch. What did he ever do but predict the future with 
uncanny accuracy?

1Z wrote:

>> Feeble use of invalidation used to undermine a sensible, well-expressed
>> point of view.
> 
> Oh, please. There is nothing reasonable about pretending to see the
> future.
> 

Well, um, actually...

If you are watching a rocket on an upwards trajectory, and it has plenty 
of fuel, and it is structurally sound, and it has plenty of space to 
climb into, then it is completely reasonable to predict a continued rate 
of climb.

There is nothing to suggest that the current demographic trends are 
going to change any time soon. Neither the state or the people seem 
particularly aware, or if they are aware, perturbed enough to do anything.

JF wrote:

> 
> Feeble use of invalidation used to undermine a sensible, well-expressed 
> point of view. It may not be your intention but your loud-mouth bully 
> boy tactics serve to cower the wholly reasonable views of concerned men 
> and women and so make it easier for those who wish to see autonomous 
> faith zones set up in England as the first step towards Islamification.
> 

What's fascinating about all this "equality" legislation, is, like all 
other leftist experiments, the unforeseen consequences.

The left have essentially decided that the Western, Christian view of 
marriage, that is, the union of one man and one woman, is redundant, 
because it "discriminates" against homosexuals. Well, of course, by the 
same fallacious token, it also "discriminates" against Muslims. Well, is 
that then religious discrimination? If not, why not? Islam sanctions 
polygamy. And what about incest? Plenty of Muslims marry first cousins, 
a practice illegal in the west.

Incidentally, 1Z, you never *did* tell me why the 81 year old loving 
relationship of the Burden sisters is inferior to the pairing of Elton 
and David John-Furnish.

1Z wrote:

>> There is nothing to suggest that the current demographic trends are
>> going to change any time soon. Neither the state or the people seem
>> particularly aware, or if they are aware, perturbed enough to do anything.
> 
> The populations of European countries are slightly expanding overall.
> That is fact.
> The rest is paranoia. You don't like the fact that immigration by
> younger people is
> balancing out the somewhat ageing native population.
> 

I'm not going to even bo

1Z wrote:
> On 24 Sep, 13:09, turnitup <same@same> wrote:
>> 1Z wrote:
>>>> Feeble use of invalidation used to undermine a sensible, well-expressed
>>>> point of view.
>>> Oh, please. There is nothing reasonable about pretending to see the
>>> future.
>> Well, um, actually...
>>
>> If you are watching a rocket on an upwards trajectory, and it has plenty
>> of fuel, and it is structurally sound, and it has plenty of space to
>> climb into, then it is completely reasonable to predict a continued rate
>> of climb.
> 
> That's evidence-based, not paranoia-based.
> 

"DENIAL ACCESSED"
"DENIAL ACCESSED"
"DENIAL ACCESSED"
"DENIAL ACCESSED"

1Z wrote:

>> "DENIAL ACCESSED"
>> "DENIAL ACCESSED"
>> "DENIAL ACCESSED"
>> "DENIAL ACCESSED"
> 
> That's another thing bad debaters always do. They come out with some
> fact-free rant, and if
> you treat it with the disdain it deserves, you're the one with a
> problem.
> 

Of course European populations are increasing. But not with people who 
are, who want to be, or consider themselves to be Europeans. You may 
think that's irrelevant. If you do, and you call yourself a liberal, 
then I can only conclude you are IN DENIAL.

1Z wrote:

>> You may
>> think that's irrelevant. If you do, and you call yourself a liberal,
>> then I can only conclude you are IN DENIAL.
> 
> Since when were liberals required to obsess about keeping Europe white
> and Christian?
> 

I think you have more than understood my point, and I think your 
inability to address it illustrates it.

JF goes:

>X-No-Archive: yes

>In message , Alan Hope 
> writes
>>turnitup goes:

>>>You can believe this crap all you like 1Z, just don't be surprised in a
>>>few decades time when you turn around and all that's left are geriatrics
>>>and a few headcases in the "People of European descent" camp, and the
>>>Muslim majority are busy implementing Sharia law and building a mega
>>>mosque on the site of Westminster abbey.

>>Fucking Jeremiah wandering in the desert innit. Don't go out in the
>>dark, Calwell. You never know who might want to slit your throat and
>>shag your women.

>>Boo!

>Feeble use of invalidation used to undermine a sensible, well-expressed 
>point of view. 

You have a small point, but I think you're overreacting to him calling
1Z's point "this crap". 

That is the feeble invalidation you were talking about, of course. 

>It may not be your intention but your loud-mouth bully 
>boy tactics serve to cower the wholly reasonable views of concerned men 
>and women and so make it easier for those who wish to see autonomous 
>faith zones set up in England as the first step towards Islamification.

Utter nonsense purveyed by Chicken Little Bible-thumpers who fear
their hold on society is coming to an end at last. How to shore up
their support? Pretend that another lot of religious nuts is even
worse. 

It won't work. Fuck the lot of them, regardless of their creed. 

>By all means use rationale to counter an argument, but usage of 
>invalidation is a weak debating tool because it's the crutch of an 
>impoverished mind.

What, like that insult, you mean?


-- 
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

turnitup goes:

>Alan Hope wrote:

>> Gay people can have children too, you know. Not with each other,
>> perhaps. Of course divorced and remarried heteros look after the
>> children of one or the other of them. I take it you have no objection
>> to that? Why can't homosexuals do the same?

>Because it's harmful to bring children up in homosexual households. 

Where's your evidence? 

>That's where you and I differ. You see everything from the point of view 
>as human beings as a means to an end, as consumer items. I see them as 
>people with rights.

Not the right to equal treatment under the law, though. And absent
that, what other rights are there?


-- 
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:11:18 +0100, turnitup wrote:

> The left have essentially decided that the Western, Christian view of 
> marriage, that is, the union of one man and one woman, is redundant, 
> because it "discriminates" against homosexuals. Well, of course, by the 
> same fallacious token, it also "discriminates" against Muslims. Well, is 
> that then religious discrimination? If not, why not? Islam sanctions 
> polygamy. And what about incest? Plenty of Muslims marry first cousins, 
> a practice illegal in the west.

No, it's not.  I think it's compulsary in some aristocratic families.



-- 
David

Alan Hope wrote:

<snip>

> Utter nonsense purveyed by Chicken Little Bible-thumpers who fear
> their hold on society is coming to an end at last. How to shore up
> their support? Pretend that another lot of religious nuts is even
> worse.
>
> It won't work. Fuck the lot of them, regardless of their creed.

I'm coming round to that view. I tried tolerance and respect. It was not 
reciprocated.

-- 

SB