test

Welcome to Talk Chelsea

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Spike

Politics & Stuff

Started by Spike,

8,074 posts in this topic
50 minutes ago, lucio said:

their idea of resisting fascism is beating a young woman 8 on 1. or this guy looks like a racist, lets attack him.

 

what about Azad Ali Vice-Chair of Unite Against Fascism :

Mr Ali has written on his blog of his “love” for Anwar al-Awlaki, the al-Qaeda cleric closely linked to many terrorist plots, including the September 11 attacks, and used to attend talks by Abu Qatada, the extremist cleric whom Britain is seeking to deport.

He has described al-Qaeda as a “myth” and denied that the Mumbai attacks were terrorism. On his blog, he also advocated the killing of British troops in Iraq. He sued a newspaper for reporting that he had said this, and lost.

Filmed by an undercover reporter for The Sunday Telegraph and Channel 4’s Dispatches, he said: “Democracy, if it means at the expense of not implementing the sharia, of course no one agrees with that.” Mr Bennett defended Mr Ali, saying: “He’s done valuable work for us. I’ve heard him speak on many occasions and he’s never said any of the things he’s been accused of.”

 

Anti Fa does fuckall against this "taking away of rights"< because they are cowards. Lets just target the man down the road who dosent like mass immigration.

I don't care about individual instances and I don't claim to support every action ever committed by anyone who calls themselves antifascist. 

You said antifascists are the same as fascists because they resort to violence. That is a false equivalency. Your main problem with fascists shouldn't  be that they use violence but that they advocate for superiority based on ethnicity, for taking away civil and human rights of people based on who they are...etc. 

We can have a discussion about whether or not violence can be used to oppose that (which we've been having in this thread), but we can't have a serious discussion about whether the two are identical because they clearly and demonstrably are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CHOULO19 said:

I don't care about individual instances and I don't claim to support every action ever committed by anyone who calls themselves antifascist. 

You said antifascists are the same as fascists because they resort to violence. That is a false equivalency. Your main problem with fascists shouldn't  be that they use violence but that they advocate for superiority based on ethnicity, for taking away civil and human rights of people based on who they are...etc. 

We can have a discussion about whether or not violence can be used to oppose that (which we've been having in this thread), but we can't have a serious discussion about whether the two are identical because they clearly and demonstrably are not.

as long as the ethnic superiority dosen't transform into laws or government , which it isnt threatening to do afaik, I'm not bothered what some reclusive nazis want. Violence is a problem for us all though. and these anti fascist stickers are everywhere, in my city. and gangs of thugs in balaclavas looking to attack people who disagree with them is concerning., especially as the victims appear to be normal people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Spike said:

Incorrect. It takes two to tango and a puzzle is incomplete without the other half. A sperm is nothing and an egg is nothing but when the two are combined they create a human life, a sperm life is not a human life, an egg life is not a human life, when the two have been conceived it is a human life. You wouldn't say I wasted beer if I poured some water on the ground and burnt some hops, would you? No they are just two pieces that create something. 

It is not scientifically meaningless and Princeton has provided a useful list: https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

Sorry, I meant philosophically not scientifically. Let's start again and try to frame the debate properly.

Your argument is that it is immoral to do abortions. You then used a scientific definition of human development. The problem there is that morals are not a scientific concept. They are an abstract philosophical concept. Morals don't apply to any scientifically defined stage of human development. Morals apply to members of what philosophers call the 'Moral Community' which basically includes anyone or anything that you consider to be a person (which may or may not include fertilized eggs, fetuses, animals, and even fictional characters. That brings us to the main debating point of the moral argument about abortion: How do you define personhood?

Now, to group many different things under the same definition, they need to exclusively share at least a single quality that you can use to define the group by. Being part of human development, as you suggested, cannot be the definition because that's not an intrinsic quality of something but rather a random definition itself. 

So what does a fertilized human egg have in common with a full grown human? One theory of personhood that can group both in the same group is the genetic theory (which google tells me was formulated by John Noonan) which basically says that anything with human DNA is a person. That is very obviously flawed because it would include things that are clearly not a person like your fallen skin cells or your spit or even dead people who still have bones...etc.

On the other extreme you have the cognitive theory for personhood (which again google says is by Mary An Warren) that says that a person must have consciousness, reasoning and capacity to communicate among other things (see here for a fuller explanation). That's also flawed because it rules out infants and small babies and we're all pretty sure that we can't kill those! :P

A more popular theory is that which defines a person as something that can feel pain and pleasure. That I believe was proposed by Peter Singer (but he himself believes a person should not only have sentience but also self-awareness). That would include fetuses older than about 25 weeks. You can see why this definition would be popular. It includes animals with a central nervous system and discludes a single cell that most would not consider to be a person.

Another one is the gradient theory of personhood which basically says that a fetus is less of person than an infant who is in turn less of a person than an adult human. Basically it means that abortion can be morally accepted in some cases since the mother is more of a person than the fetus. But to me that just raises more complications than definitive answers.

Which brings me back to my first point that the moral debate around abortion is basically pointless, not because it's not important, but because we don't agree on the definitions. Of course the moral debate is a factor in the equation but there are more important factors in my opinion that are not, or should not be, contentious like the fact that banning abortions only bans safe abortions, the fact that a huge percentage of 'homemade' abortions where abortions are illegal harm and even kill the mother, and the fact that forcing a sixteen year old to have a child she never intended to have most means that both the mother and the baby are going to have terrible lives. To me, allowing women to have the choice when to have a child or not which raises the overall quality of life for both women and children is more important than whether or not a few cells constitute a person or not.

Spike likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, lucio said:

as long as the ethnic superiority dosen't transform into laws or government , which it isnt threatening to do afaik, I'm not bothered what some reclusive nazis want. Violence is a problem for us all though. and these anti fascist stickers are everywhere, in my city. and gangs of thugs in balaclavas looking to attack people who disagree with them is concerning., especially as the victims appear to be normal people

Did the government make it legal for leftists to assault people they disagree with? Until then, my focus will be on people calling for ethnic cleansing gaining a lot of power... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, kmk108 said:

World hunger: beer is like liquid bread isn't it?

racism: people of all races love beer!

Abortion: hmmm...I guess beer can't solve abortions. 

It does if you maker drink enough :drunk:

kmk108 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascism isn't equitable to violence, (though the ideology justifies violence as a means to an end, that doesn't necessarily mean that Fascists will declare war). It's one party economic right-wing nationalism, that focuses on strong military strength and protecting national identity. Fascism isn't an inherently negative ideology and just because Antifa beat up 'Fascists' doesn't make Antifa Fascist; that makes them Authoritarian in their views of Fascism.

I'd rather be a Fascist than a Communist, though I dislike any ideology that prioritises the sate over the individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday I (an Australian immigrant) was at Korean restaurant that cooked friend chicken with a Filipino woman, across from a couple of black people, adjacent to a white couple; we were all being served by a Korean immigrants and entrepreneurs. Not to mention the restaurant was next to Mexican-Korean fusion restaurant in Deep-South America. 

America isn't perfect but it's doing alright. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Germany's Muslim Demographic Future

  • Critics of Germany's open-door immigration policy are warning that the recent surge in Germany's Muslim population — which surpassed six million in 2016 for the first time — has already changed the face of the country forever.

  • The price for reversing Germany's demographic decline appears to be the further Islamization of Germany under the guise of multiculturalism.

  • With a fertility rate of 1.6 births per woman, well below the replacement rate of 2.1, Germany will require a permanent influx of 300,000 migrants per year in order keep the current population level stable through the year 2060, according to the report.

  • "We are importing Islamic extremism, Arab anti-Semitism, national and ethnic conflicts of other peoples, as well as a different understanding of society and law. German security agencies are unable to deal with these imported security problems, and the resulting reactions from the German population." — Leaked German intelligence document.

  • More than a decade ago historian Bernard Lewis warned that if current migration trends continue, Europe will be Islamic by the end of the 21st century. Germany's political elites are at the vanguard of making that prediction come true.

Mass migration is fast-tracking the rise of Islam in Germany, as evidenced by the proliferation of no-go zones, Sharia courts, polygamy, child marriages and honor violence. Mass migration has also been responsible for social chaos, including jihadist attacks, a migrant rape epidemic, a public health crisis, rising crime and a rush by German citizens to purchase weapons for self-defense — and even to abandon Germany altogether.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9892/germany-muslims-demographic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2017 at 10:47 AM, Fulham Broadway said:

Trump wouldn't let him in the US.

But if he managed to sneak in he'd feed New Yorks homeless with the loaves and fishes, and kick David Blaines ass with that turning water into wine shit. Hallelujah !

Well my point is that leftist and rightist or whatever you call all the extreme wouldn't like him. 

Because first those that say that Jesus was a refugee and would feed all these people would only agree on that part but would not agree with the parts when he is intolerant to other's people religion. 

And then the other extreme won't like that he opens to everyone. 

So either way both sides of the extreme will still not like him. 

You either accept all his teaching or nothing. 

And I seriously dislike how people misuses teaching from Jesus for their political ideas. But that is nothing new, has been going on for ages. People need to do their reading, look into context and study the historical background as well. NOT just take one passage and take it out of context. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2017 at 0:13 AM, 11Drogba said:

 

In case you are wondering who this guy is. He is the one that sends female drivers and human right activists to jail to keep the country in stone age. This administration just like its predecessors is full of shit about fighting terrorism.

Fulham Broadway likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fernando said:

when he is intolerant to other's people religion. 

Which religions was Jesus intolerant to ? According to the Q'uran he was Allahs messenger. Peace all around. I think most of the left nowadays are secular, so he wouldn't be intolerant to them as they have no religion and want to help immigrant refugees like Jesus. Many of the right wingers use Christianity as a badge but are evil, bombing and maiming people in other countries, so maybe you are right and he would be extremely intolerant of Israels foreign policies and Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Which religions was Jesus intolerant to ? According to the Q'uran he was Allahs messenger. Peace all around. I think most of the left nowadays are secular, so he wouldn't be intolerant to them as they have no religion and want to help immigrant refugees like Jesus. Many of the right wingers use Christianity as a badge but are evil, bombing and maiming people in other countries, so maybe you are right and he would be extremely intolerant of Israels foreign policies and Trump.

What would Jesus be a refugee from? He is a Jew from Israel, not a Syrian. I'd say he'd be a young man standing around Jerusalem with a FAMAS wondering how it all came to this.Image result for israeli soldiers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Which religions was Jesus intolerant to ? According to the Q'uran he was Allahs messenger. Peace all around. I think most of the left nowadays are secular, so he wouldn't be intolerant to them as they have no religion and want to help immigrant refugees like Jesus. Many of the right wingers use Christianity as a badge but are evil, bombing and maiming people in other countries, so maybe you are right and he would be extremely intolerant of Israels foreign policies and Trump.

You said it, according to the Quran. 

That's a total different Jesus then what the bible Jesus is. 

Because the Jesus from the bible he is god, but the Quran only a messenger. The jesus from the bible he can forgive sins, the Quran only a messenger. The Jesus from the bible accepts worship, the Quran only a messenger....

So yes if you go by another book then your Jesus will be different. But the bible Jesus, he is god, forgives sin, accepts worship and declares he is the only way. 

Fulham Broadway likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Another mentalist Australian thought she was jesus injected kids with acid

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4221982/The-Family-Inside-cult-led-Anne-Hamilton-Byrne.html

Yeah so much people get fooled because they don't do their research. If you read clearly the bible Jesus did said many will come and say that he is him. But don't be deceived because when he comes back every eye will see him coming from the heavens. 

Next time Jesus comes back he will come from heaven where everyone will witness him. Not some town, island, secret place etc etc. 

If only people seriously study and read the bible and apply the same principles of studying like they do any other book. Read in context, research the historical background if you so care to give you further insight. But always context should be the basis for your reasoning. 

kellzfresh and Fulham Broadway like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.