vortexring

I'll provide you with your latest lie, but that's it - up to you to do the rest, as you promised. Still waiting. Funny how you've had the time and inclination to moniter this thread for several days, and write out several rather lengthy replies, but can't even c&p one single quote. I can't see where I said 'promise'. Again, a further demonstration of your sly little ways of changing the actual text. As I also mentioned earlier, I can't be arsed going through the posts to find the particular one in this case. As you say, it's relatively easy - and it is. But it's nice to see you now use this as justification of your accusation. Water off a ducks back. You're the one who's been showing lack of integrity as shown above, despite it being only a minor case in this instance. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Ok, so religion can encourage people to be either good or bad. Any credit it gets for encouraging people to do good, it should get equal credit for when it has encouraged people to do bad - and it's done a lot of that. You can't only consider one side of the coin. This is getting boring. I've demonstrated both sides of consideration, whilst you quite obviously favour only one yourself. It's you with the bent coin. You've yet to show that in any way. You've yet to show anything else yourself, whilst I've already explained my opinion. Justify your counter claim. You're the one with nothing. You're counter arguments have only misguided logic. Substantiate them. What he said was this: 'it is the ultimate destination of atheist thought. If you do not worship God, you end up worshipping power, whether it is Kim Jong Il, Leon Trotsky or the military might of George W. Bush.' So is the pertinent point more obvious for you? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Bollox - if it's that important you go ahead and do all the donkey work; provide both our relevant posts in the matter, and then I'll quite happily embolden the pertinent points. I doubt you'll provide the particular posts though, or your un-edited versions. edit: because you, cunty bollox, have been doing all the lying. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Ah, so when religious texts are used to justify being nasty to people that isn't religion's fault, just bad people. However when religious texts are used to encourage being good to each other it isn't because of good people, but the religious texts. How... convenient What's fucking crazy? You've said it yourself - I've emboldened it. Encouraged. That's been the point all along. Pity you've been too busy nitpicking, avoiding my questions to you, and generally taking on your typically arrogant logical higher ground. Your atheists beliefs only work to a point when you consider the greater community or society. And a fucking good example for you today is the UK. Read this: 'Atheists claim they behave no worse than believers, and often better, but why should atheists care, or use such terms as "good" and "virtue" anyway? If we are weak and poor, we can all summon up self-interested decency, behaving in a kind way, in public, towards those from whom we hope for decency in return. But as soon as we have the power to do evil, we generally do. What is to stop us, unobserved, doing and planning acts of selfish unkindness against others, as so many of us do – for example – in office politics? What is to stop us, in the privacy of the home, taking advantage of the goodness of others more generous than ourselves? Who will ever know? If we become rich or mighty, how much worse the problem is. We can rob, wound and defraud our fellow creatures without any fear that they will be able to take revenge. A surprising number of us have power to act in this way. Look at the annual massacre of unborn babies, done away with for the convenience of adults. In the harsher parts of our cities, strong, violent people rule their neighbours with pre-medieval savagery, demonstrating a fine understanding of what it means if there is no God: that if something works for you, and you can get away with it, then you may do it without fear of consequence in this world – and there is no next world. That is practical atheism. Comfortable, suburban unbelievers hate to have this pointed out to them. They would never behave like that, surrounded as they are by the invisible web of ten centuries of Christian law and morality. But it is the application of what they preach, the worship of self and power. Faith and belief can be and often are restraints on this arrogance of power. They offer the possibility of justice where human society fails to provide it – as it almost always does fail. We abolished the gallows, for example, and found we had created an armed police and an epidemic of prison suicides. We abolished school selection by exams, and found we had replaced it with selection by money. And so on. We are in the process of abolishing religion, and so of abolishing conscience, too. It is a favourite jibes that a world ruled by faith is like North Korea, a place where all is known and all is ordered. On the contrary, North Korea is the precise opposite of a land governed by conscience. It is a country governed by men who do not believe in God or conscience, where nobody can be trusted to make his own choices, and where the State decides for the people what is right and what is wrong. And it is the ultimate destination of atheist thought. If you do not worship God, as a society, you end up worshipping power, whether it is Kim Jong Il, Leon Trotsky or the military might of George W. Bush.' Peter Hitchens 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Jakee - your reply you've been bouncing around for; you presented a statement as being something I'd directly said, which in fact it hadn't. Your constant demands for answers and explanations work both ways - you're quite capable of reading earlier posts. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

The point remains - it'll take more than a generation. Probably never in fact. The uncertainty is for good reason - whilst it seemed the UK had a side to take around late 2002, for example, the more pertinent question was shouldn't we act as a 'bridge' of sorts between the two. Either way, can you really envisage the United States of Europe? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Um, then why did gun crime continue to increase AFTER the gun ban? Youse guys just can't get it into youse heads that there is NO correlation between gun ownership rates and crime, can you! This seems to be something that is just beyond the comprehension of the anti-gunnies. Yo anti-gunnies cling to those invalid beliefs the way Obama thinks that frustrated white people cling to their religion and guns. Look, just fuck off alright. You've misread my point either through stupidity or to deliberately make your poorly worded point. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Um, yes, it was a focus. All law-abiding handgun owners had their handguns confiscated by the government. So you can't claim that it wasn't a focus. When your private property is confiscated for no good reason, that's a darned big focus. But it wasn't the focus. Ok? It wasn't the fucking focus. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

A generation? No way. Consider the amount of people from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who still refuse to consider themselves British. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Can't wait till 2015 to see if the study proves to be correct. Do you really believe it could be this simple though? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

you feel you'd have more shootings.... despite your earlier statements that were the real thinking that it didn't matter much before vs after the laws were in place feeling vs thinking...and that's the essence of the issue, isn't it? Well, no. Perhaps I should explain myself better. I'm positively sure we'd have more shooting incidents. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Fascinating. I take issue with this though: "Brits arriving in New York, hoping to avoid being slaughtered on day one of their shopping mission to Manhattan are, by day two, beginning to wonder what all the fuss was about. By day three they have had had the scales lifted from their eyes. I have met incredulous British tourists who have been shocked to the core by the peacefulness of the place, the lack of the violent undercurrent so ubiquitous in British cities, even British market towns. "It seems so nice here," they quaver." They quaver!!! Hilarious! For Mr Webb who wrote the article; Fuck off. Still, this point begins to highlight a key issue: "One reason - perhaps the overriding reason - is that there is no public drunkenness in polite America, simply none. I have never seen a group of drunk young people in the entire six years I have lived here. I travel a lot and not always to the better parts of town." It's an area of American culture which originally was quite a pleasant surprise - even in Cancun during the spring break! (

Fair enough John, but over here if you own; for example, a shotgun legally, there isn't really any issues. If you own a handgun, that is illegal, therefore the targetting of innocent gun owners isn't an issue, and has therefore never been the focus. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

How remarkable. That should lead us to consider the numerous other polutants that have been removed or discouraged from general use from around the same time and their possible effects; as well as the developing countries which still maintain their general use. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

No, it isn't. It *has*, however, deprived British citizens of the most effective form of self-defense against the criminals that ARE knifing and shooting people in the commission of crimes. Perhaps, but then why did the vast majority of the UK populace remain unarmed prior to the stricter gun laws? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I recognise your point in regards to the 'small percentage', but I also think it likely we'd have more shooting incidents if it wasn't for such a law. Exactly how much so, well, that's anybodies guess isn't it? We'd certainly have increased weapon proliferation which is what brought me to my earlier point. Still, it's interesting speculation nonetheless, especially when taking into account the criminal mentality. Strict gun control over the populace is ideal in such cases, considering they'll always manage access. So maybe it's this area that needs the address; how the fuck can you reduce weapon proliferation amongst 'criminals' - if private firearm ownership is illegal? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

John, you once mentioned your motivation for bringing such posts to our attention was: "I'm worried about the mass ignorance about the lack of effectiveness of gun control laws, and the erosions of personal liberty and safety caused by those who don't understand that fact and want to keep trying gun control anyway." You now further mention: "It's too bad they didn't figure this out until after all the privately held handguns and semi-auto long guns were confiscated." I get the impression you feel that the 'soaring' rate of knifings and shootings in the UK is primarily through our gun control laws? Would I be correct in assuming you'd also believe these rates to be considerably lower if we had less strict gun control? If my assumptions of your thought process are correct, your speculation is misplaced, in the sense that gun ownership within the UK was very low throughout the general population prior to the new laws. I suppose this leads to further speculation. If the UK gun laws had not been introduced, what would the percentage of gun owners be now, in comparison? I'd guess it's likely that we'd see perhaps a small increase, but nothing of much significance. I also think we'd see similiar rises of crime rates, gun law or not. Gun control isn't the reason for soaring UK knifings and shootings. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I had my in-laws visiting over the weekend. We went to the Lake District on Saturday, but didn't get to do much as it pissed down. Saturday night went out with the Mrs, Sunday afternoon we visited an Abbey then I took the kids out fishing. Exciting stuff eh? Did notice on Sunday evening you were 'waiting' though. I will resume but it won't be tonight, as I genuinely can't be arsed, and not tomorrow either as I'm night flying. Guess you'll have to wait another couple of days.

The world doesn't hate Britain anymore? Fuck my old boots - please, feel free to inform us of your wisdom. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Eh? I'm still catching up on the new posts since my last visit. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I'll get round to it when I can be arsed. Did you have a good weekend waiting? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Liar. I did not provide any pseudo-statement of yours in the post you took issue with. What I in fact wrote was a question to you in my own words. Wanna read it again? Here it is "And why is their effect irreplaceable? If people can be good without religion (which you have said) then why not communities?" So, what I've done is demonstrate conclusively how you've continuously stated one thing and then, when called on it, claimed you've never said it. Now, pick one fucking position. Can societies function normally without religion or can they not? Simple question, make it a simple answer. I'm calling it a night now Jakee, pants being on fire and what have you. I will show you the phrase you said I said which in actual fact I didn't tomorrow, in fact, maybe Monday. But it isn't in reference to the example you've provided. Liar! Not me sunshine. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

You haven't fucking answered it! Two decisions, left or right - that's all the options you'd have - and you'd pick the one a billion people suggest. Bet ya' 50p. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I'll get back to this point tomorrow - it's too late now. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I liked that - but did he have billions of people suggesting one route and nobody suggesting the other? It seems all he had was a bit of groundsign and intuition to decide from. And, you'll love this; what evidence did he have that his route chosen was the best decision? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'