You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Undermining Britain and the majority.
November 22 2024 8.38am

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Undermining Britain and the majority.

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 11 of 11 << First< 7 8 9 10 11

  

Stirlingsays Flag 06 May 18 11.24am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by buzby1

Er... no. Think you'll find 61.7% voted for Labour in 1945 general election, 57.9% for the Conservatives in 1959, 57.6% for Labour in 1966, 61.1% for Conservatives in 1983, 63.4% for Labour in 1997 and 62.5%for Labour in 2005. Quite important to get facts correct.

I said, more voted for leave than voted for anything ever. In fact 17,410,742 people to be precise.

Because the voter turn out was so high it surpassed all of those other votes you refer to. I never said, the leave vote had the highest percentage of votes ever. I said more had voted leave than for anything ever in the UK.

I can see why you thought I was referring to percent because that was in the sentence previous.

Labour in 1945 received 11,967,746 votes.
The Tories in 59 received 13,750,875 votes.
Labour in 66 received 13,096,951 votes.
The Tories in 83 received 13,012,316 votes.
Labour in 2005 received 9,552,436 votes.

Edited by Stirlingsays (06 May 2018 11.45am)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Dweeb Flag East London 14 May 18 5.47pm Send a Private Message to Dweeb Add Dweeb as a friend

You have to use percentages as the validator, either that or upscale all the previous votes to take account of the fact of population/demographic changes.

Otherwise that's like saying Man City scored the most ever points to win a league title, well yeah you get 3 points for a win now rather than 2 a team used to get.

 


Taking the bungy jump since 1964. Never to see John Jackson in a shirt again

Sorry to see Lee Hills go, did we ever see Alex Marrow? We did January 2013

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Stirlingsays Flag 14 May 18 5.56pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by Dweeb

You have to use percentages as the validator, either that or upscale all the previous votes to take account of the fact of population/demographic changes.

Otherwise that's like saying Man City scored the most ever points to win a league title, well yeah you get 3 points for a win now rather than 2 a team used to get.

No you don't. You are only required to meet the facts of your statement.

I said more had voted for Brexit than had voted for anything thing else. I made no claim to anything else.

I was correct and I was only repeating a fact that had been oft repeated and tested previously.

I'm not aware of what the accurate percentages votes are for other voting instances.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards SW19 CPFC Flag Addiscombe West 14 May 18 6.57pm Send a Private Message to SW19 CPFC Add SW19 CPFC as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Party politics is not the issue.
The simple fact is that there are many who hate Britain, it's history and it's culture. They want to undermine it or recreate it in their own image. The 'majority' of people want the country to maintain the principles and makeup that it has. They don't want loony religions or having minority interests prioritised at their expense.

When you read some of the posts from the usual suspects on here and even more so on the BBS, you know that this assertion is spot on. The noisy minority want to ruin this country for the rest of us to their advantage. Its exactly what always happens when a large minority begin an occupation. A more extreme version is happening in Israel.

To be fair, all religions are equally loony.

It does make me chuckle when people call out other religions like theirs is the absolute bestest, purest and only one that could possibly be (out of however many thousands).

As this is often a cliched topic of derision, I’ll go with it as an example. One of my main bugbears is the ‘Islam is violent/despicable/evil’ trope.

Maybe take a look at the rape, pillage, murder and mechanism for control that your own religion was founded on first.

A bit off topic, but just challenging the my religion is ‘sane’ and the others are loony statement. They’re all nuts. Its not 5AD anymore, and most people know what the sun is, fairies don’t exist (well, actually I can’t prove that) and that the earth isn’t flat.

Oh and that religion you’re following?

You’re probably following it wrong, seeing as it’s been distorted so many times from it’s original conception (see Roman Catholicism, the classic lazy mans Christian) that if Christ was an actual thing (sorry I can’t prove that either), he’d be pretty annoyed that his profound teachings had been cut, pasted and b******ised to suit whatever agenda was needed to control the at the time. And that sinning is fine man. Just don’t forget to confess.

Segue rant over. Proceed

 


Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Stirlingsays Flag 14 May 18 8.31pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

To be fair, all religions are equally loony.

It does make me chuckle when people call out other religions like theirs is the absolute bestest, purest and only one that could possibly be (out of however many thousands).

As this is often a cliched topic of derision, I’ll go with it as an example. One of my main bugbears is the ‘Islam is violent/despicable/evil’ trope.

Maybe take a look at the rape, pillage, murder and mechanism for control that your own religion was founded on first.

I am an agnostic atheist, by the way, not that it is of any importance.

To repeat Christopher Hitchen's answer to this:

If this was an historical argument set hundreds of years ago, or indeed a narrow one focused entirely upon a few nations in Africa then an argument could be made that Christianity is the most dangerous and violent religion.....specifically Catholicism.

However, we live in the modern day.

In the modern world the religion of Islam is responsible for having.....by far the most violent adherents in the world who are responsible for most of the deaths from terrorism.

Edited by Stirlingsays (14 May 2018 8.32pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards SW19 CPFC Flag Addiscombe West 14 May 18 11.06pm Send a Private Message to SW19 CPFC Add SW19 CPFC as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I am an agnostic atheist, by the way, not that it is of any importance.

To repeat Christopher Hitchen's answer to this:

If this was an historical argument set hundreds of years ago, or indeed a narrow one focused entirely upon a few nations in Africa then an argument could be made that Christianity is the most dangerous and violent religion.....specifically Catholicism.

However, we live in the modern day.

In the modern world the religion of Islam is responsible for having.....by far the most violent adherents in the world who are responsible for most of the deaths from terrorism.

Edited by Stirlingsays (14 May 2018 8.32pm)

No doubt. Although it's debatable how many of those terrorists actually could be defined as Muslim. Much like any extremist of any religion.

I suppose my reasoning for picking on the violence theme is that people love to label Islam itself as violent first and foremost (not true) which your average yokel then takes as anything related to islam is violent. It's not the case, and as you point out, it's just its turn in the limelight.

It's the same vile, to quote again, 'loony' dross played out again and again, this time these two are the largest protagonists. See Pagans and Christians for one example of the same thing, different era.

It's amazing how many people don't seem to get the basics of how religion is used as a vehicle to control, disrupt and attain power, with little regard for the actual practice itself. The religion in question is meaningless. Most were born out of or warped into providing the same purpose. Any purity was lost a long time ago – save for the odd monk, that's how you really practice – if it ever existed at all.

Also re. Agnostic Atheism, technically we are all agnostic. None of us know or don't know whether any god does or doesn't exist. I'm therefore also technically an Agnostic Atheist, but someone that believes in the almighty one of many is also an agnostic theist (relative to whichever potentially meaningless forked version of christianity they follow).

So I find it simpler just to say that I'm an atheist. You either believe or you don't, until proven otherwise.

Although I'd wager an atheist would be quicker to convert to a believer when confronted with irrefutable evidence than a theist. This one would convert pretty damn quickly, that's for sure.

 


Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards Hrolf The Ganger Flag 15 May 18 2.00pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

To be fair, all religions are equally loony.

It does make me chuckle when people call out other religions like theirs is the absolute bestest, purest and only one that could possibly be (out of however many thousands).

As this is often a cliched topic of derision, I’ll go with it as an example. One of my main bugbears is the ‘Islam is violent/despicable/evil’ trope.

Maybe take a look at the rape, pillage, murder and mechanism for control that your own religion was founded on first.

A bit off topic, but just challenging the my religion is ‘sane’ and the others are loony statement. They’re all nuts. Its not 5AD anymore, and most people know what the sun is, fairies don’t exist (well, actually I can’t prove that) and that the earth isn’t flat.

Oh and that religion you’re following?

You’re probably following it wrong, seeing as it’s been distorted so many times from it’s original conception (see Roman Catholicism, the classic lazy mans Christian) that if Christ was an actual thing (sorry I can’t prove that either), he’d be pretty annoyed that his profound teachings had been cut, pasted and b******ised to suit whatever agenda was needed to control the at the time. And that sinning is fine man. Just don’t forget to confess.

Segue rant over. Proceed

To be fair, I did not suggest otherwise.

What I would suggest is that the movement toward less formal religion lead by the likes of Calvin and Luther and the creation of the Church of England ultimately produced a far more personal and less aggressive religion. Nations that predominantly came to practice that style of religion have benefited while those that maintain more controlling, restrictive belief systems have tended to fair worse.
Putting it bluntly. They tend to be backward s*** holes.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Stirlingsays Flag 15 May 18 7.11pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

No doubt. Although it's debatable how many of those terrorists actually could be defined as Muslim. Much like any extremist of any religion.

People are allowed to self define as a Muslim. Anyone who tells you that there is an Islamic system that officially decides this is lying.

Perhaps what you are saying here is, 'how many of them can be defined as Muslims' that so and so tells me is Islamic.

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

I suppose my reasoning for picking on the violence theme is that people love to label Islam itself as violent first and foremost (not true) which your average yokel then takes as anything related to islam is violent. It's not the case, and as you point out, it's just its turn in the limelight.

Well hang on there.....What Hitchens said was undoubtenly true yet lets not be simplistic with this. Islam was always violent. Anyone who knows the history of how quickly it spread and its early conquests knows this....the beheadings of a whole Jewish tribe.....I take it that you actually know something about Islamic history? There are plenty of different narratives other than just the Qu'ran and hadiths and other Islamic writings.

Islam wasn't as violent as Christianity hundreds of years ago because it wasn't as widespread.....but they did a good job in catching up. If it wasn't for the Battle of Tours in 732 the history of Europe would be very different.


Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

It's the same vile, to quote again, 'loony' dross played out again and again, this time these two are the largest protagonists. See Pagans and Christians for one example of the same thing, different era.

While I consider myself a layman's student of history. The only relevance is in how the past affects the present. The reality is that the only religious extremists that people boarding a train in London today have to worry about are extremists calling themselves believers in Islam.

So relevance to a life being lived in the UK today is sensible.

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

It's amazing how many people don't seem to get the basics of how religion is used as a vehicle to control, disrupt and attain power, with little regard for the actual practice itself. The religion in question is meaningless. Most were born out of or warped into providing the same purpose. Any purity was lost a long time ago – save for the odd monk, that's how you really practice – if it ever existed at all.

Are you trying to claim that all religions are the same? They may all be as flawed in logic as each other but when it comes to threats to life within western countries they are most definitely not the same. The swelling in size of our national security budget and its activities and arrests towards just one religion are painfully obvious testaments to this.

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

Also re. Agnostic Atheism, technically we are all agnostic. None of us know or don't know whether any god does or doesn't exist. I'm therefore also technically an Agnostic Atheist, but someone that believes in the almighty one of many is also an agnostic theist (relative to whichever potentially meaningless forked version of Christianity they follow).

So I find it simpler just to say that I'm an atheist. You either believe or you don't, until proven otherwise.

Although I'd wager an atheist would be quicker to convert to a believer when confronted with irrefutable evidence than a theist. This one would convert pretty damn quickly, that's for sure.

As with describing yourself a Muslim you have the liberty to do this (even if disowning the religion is a different matter). However, for myself the usage of agnostic is in recognition of the fact that knowledge as to a 'creator'....its form or purpose isn't knowable.

So essentially we agree here and it's just a question of preference between us on what we wish to highlight.

The question of a some type of 'creator' isn't of course restricted to the personal god religions. This is why I empathize the agnostic word.

I agree with you that when it comes to the question of belief in a 'personal god' then I'm an atheist.....that classical spirit(s) in the sky who cares about where you stick your love stick and keeps score on how kind you were to your neighbours dog...etc etc. It is clearly nonsense....any observation of nature tends to blown this out of the water.

But as to the wider question of how the universe came to be....I'm an agnostic atheist.....apologies for waffling on here as essentially I think I've just repeated myself.


Edited by Stirlingsays (15 May 2018 7.19pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 11 of 11 << First< 7 8 9 10 11

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Undermining Britain and the majority.