mudsticks
Squire
¿Qué?
Laurence Fox vs Mukhtar
- Thread starter winjim
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
¿Qué?
AndyRM
Elder Goth
A Subtle Joke Trampled.
From dayes of yore when a previous user, now departed would say something witty only for her subtlety not to be picked up upon.
mudsticks
Squire
I guessed the subtle joke bit (eventually)
But 'trampled'.. Oh drear - really that bad ?? 😥
newfhouse
pleb
This would fit in any of several threads.
View: https://twitter.com/i_ammukhtar/status/1720827030931992838?s=61&t=IaNHN0MzKohAo3Ktl0DsFQ
View: https://twitter.com/i_ammukhtar/status/1720827030931992838?s=61&t=IaNHN0MzKohAo3Ktl0DsFQ
newfhouse
pleb
He doesn’t deserve his own thread so I’ll just leave this here.
View: https://twitter.com/parody_pm/status/1725947512207347755?s=61&t=IaNHN0MzKohAo3Ktl0DsFQ
View: https://twitter.com/parody_pm/status/1725947512207347755?s=61&t=IaNHN0MzKohAo3Ktl0DsFQ
Beebo
Guru
Fox’s libel trial begins today for the Paedo name calling he got involved with back in 2020 with a drag queen and a stonewall trustee.
It all got a bit heated over a Sainsburys advert celebrating black history month! And he says they called him racist so he called them a Paedo.
He had requested a jury trail as they “would be better at reaching fair verdicts in light of the cultural and social context of this case”. But the judge defy that he alone will decide.
I presume his defence is that you are allowed to be rude on Twitter and anyway everyone other was only joking.
It all got a bit heated over a Sainsburys advert celebrating black history month! And he says they called him racist so he called them a Paedo.
He had requested a jury trail as they “would be better at reaching fair verdicts in light of the cultural and social context of this case”. But the judge defy that he alone will decide.
I presume his defence is that you are allowed to be rude on Twitter and anyway everyone other was only joking.
OP
OP
winjim
Welcome yourself into the new modern crisis
I understand the point he's trying to make but it's a bloody stupid one. It boils down to if you call me a name I can call you one as well so ner.
In the Mukhtar case I think he's withdrawn the complaint against one of the tweets which as far as I can tell is the original 'f*ck off you racist prick' one. Which means that all he's suing for is the aftermath of the original argument which seems a bit topsy turvy. I could have that wrong but that's the impression I get.
Can you derive a moral code from the study of petal structures or the physics of black holes? Science describes and seeks to understand what is, it can't say what ought to be.
Why is that so difficult to believe? Predictive prophecy cannot happen, and yet ...
The late David Pawson claimed virgin births, though vanishingly unlikely, are in fact possible, but can only produce female offspring.
You treat everybody the same. How you would want them to treat you. I have worked with gays, people who have committed adultery, or verbal abusers, pilferers, dabblers in the occult etc. This doesn't mean you have to approve of what they do. Neither do you have to bring up, but if they bring it up then you should be free to say what you think.
If all we ever did was to nitpick over all our political, religious, moral or ethical differences we'd never get anything done.
I brought up before the fact we will all die, and either a) cease to exist or b) face judgement. @monkers likewise responded by talking about hell, although I didn't bring it up. Your objection to this is imo fatally undermined by the fact in Christian theology God has provided a way of escape from this, an amnesty if you like, consisting of mercy instead of justice, and made this available for the whole human race. The problem is the condition for receiving this begins with repentance, and a change of mind and admission that you have done wrong. This is the sticking point when it comes to homosexuality or any other 'sin'.
It isn't difficult to see what the text means. It is usually a case of reading it and taking it at face value. Previous generations don't seem to have struggled with this. The problem is in accepting it, not understanding it.
Nope I asked the question In an atheist universe, if someone wants to leave their wife for someone else younger and healthier, why shouldn't they? I don't think I got a reply!
The reason from my point of view as to why you shouldn't commit adultery is not just to avoid judgement, but primarily it is always the wrong thing to do, it is immoral and unloving. Not keeping faith having given solemn vows. (If you don't intend to keep vows, don't make them in the first place.)
The 'wrath' you mention is manifested in the here and now - essentially in the breadown in human relationships. It is testified to on this very forum: Cruella Braverman x 2, Nadine Dorries, Yet more Tory sleaze, The nasty party (Tories) is back, Who cares, Can the Met police ever really change. This thread showcases it too.
All about a society that is increasingly loveless, and this applies to both the right and the left.
I'd like to ask a question. For decades since gay liberation days marriage has been under attack for being a source of oppression. Why then has there been a campaign to extend it to same-sex attracted? So they too can be oppressed? It is, once again, incoherent.
D
Deleted member 121
Guest
I think this sentence is blown way out of proportion.
No, Because the magnitude of the attack on marriage is blown way out of proportion.
bobzmyunkle
Senior Member
'since gay liberation days'???
Surely marriage has been 'under attack' due to it's role of keeping women under control in a patriarchal society?
Not directly related to 'gay liberation'.
mudsticks
Squire
It's not incoherent to want equal rights for same sex couples if they wish to marry traditionally.
That's called equal choices.
I personally was very happy when someone went to the trouble of getting civil partnerships as an option for heterosexual couples, as I wanted nothing to do with all the patriachal baggage of trad marriage -
-Imagine that people having free choice for themselves that hurts no one else.
You say society is becoming increasingly 'loveless' Maybe in your sphere -
-I don't see that.
I see many good both people young and old, working for peace, for social justice (of which climate justice is a large part) being active in many present life and future life enhancing activities.
Some of those people have religious faith (of a variety of flavours) but they are not a large proportion.
Most of them are motivated by being decent intelligent humanistic humans.
Who can see that we have a mutual duty of care, the fact of our inherent interconnectivity with each other and the ecosystems* we live in is the guide for action.
Forcing unwilling girls and women into continuing unwanted pregnancies, when there are perfectly safe alternatives is not part of that system of care.
Digging up fossil fuels and burning them when we have alternatives is not care either.
It is very possible to give a sh*t without having fear of 'eternal' damnation hanging over people.
You say you didn't bring up hell - but without something like it - how does your system of 'last judgement' work?
If you don't say "Sorry daddy you're right, being born gay was very naughty (although you made me that way) I should really have lived a sexless life of shame" What's the terrible consequences of not repenting??
*Yup petal structures can help with discerning that.🏵️💮🌸🌷
Loads more in there but secular 'duty' calls loudly etc etc 😇
BTW Thanks for the amusingly absolutist binary options of
a) We all die and cease to exist (quite likely imo)
or
b) We Will Face Judgement..!!! !!! 😳
Still like they say Unkers 'You do You' 👍🏼
Last edited:
Ian H
Legendary Member
Then you obviously have no insight into the difficulties of translating even modern, living languages, let alone ancient dead ones.
C R
Über Member
Or understanding that neuroses inherited from stone age goat herders may not have much place nowadays.
